SAAarchaeologicalrecord - Society for American Archaeology

SPECIAL ISSUE ON PUBLIC OUTREACH

the

SAA

archaeological record

S O C I E T Y

F O R

MARCH

A M E R I C A N

2002 • VOLUME 2 • NUMBER 2

A R C H A E O L O G Y

from saa’s book program. . . Ethics in American Archaeology, 2nd revised edition. Edited by Mark J. Lynott and Alison Wylie. This groundbreaking series of papers explores the myriad issues facing archaeologists as archaeological sites become more well known and the preservation of artifacts continues to command public interest. The Second Revised Edition expands the discussion that led to the development of the Principles of Archaeological Ethics. This innovative volume is an invaluable resource, especially in making ethics a standard part of formal archaeological training. 2000. 168 pages. ISBN: 0-932839-16-9. Regular Price: $12.95, SAA Member Discount Price: $9.95.

NEW! Delivering Archaeological Information Electronically, edited by Mary S. Carroll. With contributions by Christopher Chippendale, David Carlson, S. Terry Childs, Harrison Eiteljorg, II, James A. Farley, Hugh Jarvis, Mary S. Carroll, Bart Marable, Peter McCartney, and Mark Aldenderfer. ISBN: 0-932839-23-1. Regular Price: $26.25, SAA Member Discount Price: $21.00.

History Beneath the Sea: Nautical Archaeology in the Classroom. Edited by K.C. Smith and Amy Douglass. History Beneath the Sea provides background readings and classroom activities for secondary-level educators who wish to teach history, social studies, and science through the exciting medium of underwater archaeology. ISBN: 0-932839-17-7. Regular Price: $5.95, SAA Member Discount Price: $4.95.

Archaeological Research and Heritage Preservation in the Americas. Edited by Robert D. Drennan and Santiago Mora. The contributors to the volume discuss experiences of archaeological research and heritage preservation under widely varied conditions in locations throughout the Americas from Argentina to Canada. Regular Price: $21.95, SAA Member Discount Price: $17.95.

NEW! Topics in Cultural Resource Law. Edited by Donald Forsyth Craib. This collection of articles explores a wide range of legal issues as they pertain to the control, protection, and regulation of cultural resources. 2000. ISBN: 0-932839-21-5. Regular price: $24.95, SAA Member Discount Price: $19.95.

see inside back cover for ordering information

the

SAAarchaeological record The Magazine of the Society for American Archaeology Volume 2, no. 2 March 2002

John Kantner

Editor’s Corner

2

Letter to the Editor

3

In Brief

4

Tobi A. Brimsek

I Am So Tired of Jargon and Narrow Teaching...

5

Brian Fagan

Insights: Don’t Forget the Cookies and the Fruit

8

Carol J. Ellick

Government Archaeology: Public Outreach at the Midwest Archeological Center, National Park Service

11

Bruce A. Jones

Resource Guide to U.S. Federal Agency Public Outreach and Education for Archaeology

13

Barbara J. Little

Working Together: Applied Archaeology on the Canadian Plains

17

Jack Brink

The Colorado Coal Field War Archaeology Project

21

The Ludlow Collective

Exchanges: The Place of Archaeology in Teaching History in the Americas: Some Episodes of a Long Debate

24

Irina Podgorny

Exchanges: A First Look at Public Outreach in Mexican and Guatemalan Archaeology

27

Emily McClung de Tapia

Public Education: Heritage Tourism and Public Archaeology

30

Teresa L. Hoffman, Mary L. Kwas, and Helaine Silverman

Public Perception and “Pop Archaeology”: A Survey of Current Attitudes Toward Televised Archaeology in Britain

33

Ceinwen Paynton

Interactive Entertainment as Public Archaeology

37

Ethan Watrall

news & notes positions open calendar

40 41 42

Cover photo: Cueva de las Manos, Santa Cruz, Argentina. Photo by Carlos Gradin.

the

SAAarchaeological record The Magazine of the Society for American Archaeology Volume 2, No. 2 March 2002

EDITOR’S CORNER John Kantner

The SAA Archaeological Record (ISSN 1532-7299) is published five times a year and is edited by John Kantner with assistance from Ronald Hobgood. Deadlines for submissions are: December 1 (January), February 1 (March), April 1 (May), August 1 (September), and October 1 (November); send to The SAA Archaeological Record, Department of Anthropology and Geography, Georgia State University, 33 Gilmer St., Atlanta, GA 303033083. For information, call (404) 651-1761; fax (404) 651-3235, or email: kantner@ gsu.edu. Manuscript submission via email or by disk is encouraged. Advertising and placement ads should be sent to SAA headquarters, 900 Second St., NE #12, Washington, DC 20002, (202) 789-8200. Associate editors include: Emily McClung de Tapia [Exchanges, Mexico & Central America] email: [email protected] Jose Luis Lanata [Exchanges, Southern Cone] email: [email protected] Anne Vawser [Government] email: [email protected] Lynne Sebastian [Insights] email: [email protected] Mark Aldenderfer [Interface] email: [email protected] John Hoopes [Networks] email: [email protected] Teresa Hoffman [Public Education] email: [email protected] Kurt Dongoske [Working Together] email: [email protected] Inquiries and submissions should be addressed directly to them. The SAA Archaeological Record is provided free to members and institutional subscribers to American Antiquity and Latin American Antiquity worldwide. The SAA Archaeological Record can be found on the Web in PDF format at www.saa.org/publications/ thesaaarchrec/index.html. Past issues of the SAA Bulletin can be found at www.saa.org/publications/ saabulletin/index.html. Copyright © 2002 by the Society for American Archaeology. All Rights Reserved Manager, Publications: John Neikirk Design: Victoria Russell Papertiger Studio •Washington, DC Production: Peter Lindeman Oakland Street Publishing • Arlington, VA

2

John Kantner is an assistant professor of anthropology at Georgia State University.

Introducing the Special Issue on Public Outreach When I tell people that I grew up in New Mexico, they almost always say something to the effect of “oh, that must be why you became an archaeologist, what with such a visible prehistoric landscape and dynamic cultural heritage.” The truth of the matter is that I do not remember being purposefully exposed to the region’s cultural diversity and history. Although my experience in the public schools was positive, most of what I remember from social studies were memorizing the counties of the state and engaging in a mock trial in a real courtroom, while the highlights of my history courses were learning about the Hundred Year’s War and the Kennedy assassination. Like most founding members of Generation X, my formative years were perhaps more profoundly influenced by Space Invaders and Apple computers. The Atari game Pitfall and the Indiana Jones movies represent the greatest exposure I had to archaeology, and while these were entertaining, even Love Boat seemed to offer more viable career alternatives. I do not recall learning about archaeology or New Mexico’s heritage until I went away to a liberal-arts college and fortuitously enrolled in an anthropology course, an event that immediately derailed my intended career in biology. My experience is far from unique. Archaeology has always had a public relations problem. While we are able to do archaeology only because the public believes it to be important, we tend to ignore them. A number of events over the past few decades, however, demonstrate that the public can be fickle—consider the recent crises in public funding for agencies that support archaeology and heritage preservation, as well as the number of small colleges and universities that have dropped archaeology from their curricula. Perhaps because of this recognition of archaeology’s inherent insecurity, in the past decade or so, “public outreach” has become a growing—albeit underfunded— component of archaeological inquiry. We are at the point, I believe, where it has moved into the mainstream of the discipline, although for many of us, “public outreach” still remains a “buzzword” that everyone talks about but few really know how to do. It is therefore with great pleasure that I introduce this special issue of The SAA Archaeological Record. With the help of the assistant editors, contributions have been assembled that address many different aspects of public outreach. The articles include public outreach efforts in grade-school and higher education, the development of heritage tourism, and the role of archaeology in television and interactive media. Public outreach in public and private sector cultural resource management and academia are considered, and contributions cover much of the Americas, from Canada to Argentina. I hope that all readers will find both inspiration and guidance in this selection of articles. That efforts in public outreach are still needed is attested to by the numerous students in my courses whose advisors have told them that archaeologists only study Egypt and Greece—or dinosaurs. That efforts have already been successful is attested to by the numerous New Mexico grade-school students who now email me questions about the state’s heritage.

Upcoming Thematic Issue The September 2002 issue will be dedicated to the theme, “Gender and Minority Equity in Archaeology.” Several people have already contacted me with suggestions and offers of contributions, and the issue is beginning to fill up. If you would like to participate in this special issue, please contact me soon!

The SAA Archaeological Record • March 2002

LETTERS

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

I

read with delight Mary Kwas’s article, “Communicating with the Public Part II: Writing for the Public and How to Say It” (The SAA Archaeological Record, 2001, 1[5]:16), where she refers to the exercise as interpretation. She could not be more correct! But I contend that what she is describing is an interpretive experience. As the field of archaeology expands into cultural resources management, archaeologists find that they must manage their resources more creatively, in ways not previously imagined. This means gaining funding through grants when funding streams dry up, preserving and restoring sites and historic buildings using public participation through volunteers, and attracting civic groups who thrive on proj-

ects who might not otherwise know your resource exists. This resource base must be built from the ground up, and this means bringing the people to the resource and educating them, often through tours, specialty signage, and Earth Day and Archaeology Week events. As the cultural resources manager, you must act as the tour guide and interpreter in order to educate—to build excitement about that resource—so those individuals and groups will go out into their communities and drum up support. In this way, peripheral benefits in the form of newspaper coverage, articles in magazines, and the start of interest groups can garner monies and resources that may not be available to the cultural program in any other way. As a cultural resources manager for a state Department of Defense, I conduct many tours. Thus, I participated in a training program to become a Certified Interpretive Guide (CIG). Sponsored by the National Association for Interpretation out of Ft.

Collins, Colorado, this training has been invaluable in teaching me to “talk story” about many of the resources I manage. As education is one of the mandates of my job, I now convey my personal appreciation for the sites I manage, set themes, and put my visitors there in the past with the people and events of that place and time. Unfortunately, this is something that archaeologists do so well with one another but often fail miserably with anyone else. As our job descriptions expand and our resource bases change, it is imperative that we not only learn how to write for the public, but learn to interpret for the public in order to save these historic places that we have the responsibility to manage. I hope that Mary Kwas will continue to explore the writing as well as the interpretive aspect of cultural resources management. It’s just not about archaeology anymore.

Wendy Tolleson, RPA, CIG Cultural Resources Manager Hawaii Army National Guard

AD 1/2 PAGE HORIZONTAL

March 2002 • The SAA Archaeological Record

3

IN BRIEF

IN BRIEF Tobi A. Brimsek

Tobi A. Brimsek is executive director of the Society for American Archaeology.

Connecting to SAA SAA has been reporting the level of email connectivity of the membership since the Society launched its “Get Connected” campaign in 1997. Seven years ago only 43% of the membership shared their email addresses with the Society. Currently 86% of the membership has shared that information. Can we get to 100%? The Society judiciously uses email for important and timely communications. It is a method of communication that can cut administrative costs and shift those postage dollars into programs. Will you help us? Please send us your email address (via email, of course!) to [email protected]. We will update your record. We also find that given the mobility of our membership that about 10% of the addresses that we have on record at any given time may need updating. If we have an outdated email address for you, won’t you please email us with your current address? Thank you for enabling us to communicate efficiently with you. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us by phone (202-789-8200), fax (202-7890284), or email.

Technologically Speaking One year ago this column introduced SAA’s two-year technology initiative spanning from spring 2001 through the summer of 2002. While staff anticipate a seamless transition from our members’ perspective, we will be replacing the majority of our infrastructure from the ground up. New hardware—servers and work stations, to set the stage for web-based software applications, is currently being installed. A new accounting system has been up and running since last July. Our “live date” for the new applications is in early June 2002. Once we have “gone live,” we will email you to let you know what applications will be available to you via SAAweb. This column will also discuss the new technology once the implementation is complete. This Boardapproved initiative is truly an investment in SAA’s future. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the executive director ([email protected]). One other note to our technology program is that Lana León, SAA’s manager, Information Services, will be leaving the Soci-

4


ety at the end of June. Due to her husband’s relocation, Lana will be moving to upstate New York. To smooth the transition and the implementation, it is hoped that the new manager, Information Services will be brought on board in early June.

On Membership and Marketing In January 2002, the Membership Services Assistant position was abolished, and a new entry-level professional position, coordinator, Membership and Marketing was established. Mary Margaret (Maggie) Thompson has joined the staff in this capacity. Maggie comes to SAA from Florida State University with a degree in marketing. She is the voice behind “membership@ saa.org.” Please do not hesitate to contact her directly, should you need to ([email protected]) or feel free to contact the manager, Membership and Marketing, Bette Fawley ([email protected]). In just a short time, it has become clear that we have formed an absolutely dynamic team in the membership and marketing arenas.

Annual Meeting Site Selection Update For 2006, the Board has selected San Juan, Puerto Rico as the location for the SAA Annual Meeting. SAA is the first organization to sign contracts for the San Juan convention center, which is currently under construction. The headquarters hotel will be the Caribe Hilton. The student property, the Normandie, is steps away from the Hilton in a beautiful art deco building. Next year, in 2003, the 68th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology will be in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The headquarters hotel is the Milwaukee Hilton, restored in 1994 to its original 1920s grandeur. SAA will also be using various student and overflow properties, along with the convention center—the Midwest Express Center. The Milwaukee Hilton has a skywalk connection to the Midwest Express Center. Information on Milwaukee will begin appearing in the September issue of The SAA Archaeological Record. Milwaukee will be introduced to the membership in Denver through a booth staffed by the Milwaukee Convention and Visitors Center in the SAA exhibit hall.

ARTICLE

I AM SO TIRED OF JARGON AND NARROW TEACHING. . . . Brian Fagan Brian Fagan says he has not only written far too much about public outreach over the years, he has said it all before. Accordingly, he promises this is the last time he will write about it!

I

have spent the past three months saturating myself in a complex archaeological literature of CRM reports, journal articles, and monographs covering 13,000 years of the past. On the whole, I am little wiser than when I began. On the other hand, I am confused, frustrated, and puzzled, weary of obfuscatory jargon and passive tenses, of mindless description and simplistic reasoning. This huge bog of literature is all we have to tell the story of a huge area of North America. It leaves thirteen millennia inadequately described and virtually unintelligible even to those who have spent a lifetime working with the sites and artifacts involved. In short, the archaeology of the region concerned is effectively inaccessible to anyone but a handful of people who have mastered the literature—and I, hopefully a professional archaeologist, am not among them. Even worse, no one seems to be worrying about the situation. I have a sense that hundreds of us are locked into small, comfortable worlds of CRM projects and self-perpetuating research without any reference to reality whatsoever. And few people seem to be concerned about the credibility of these activities with the public (or clients) who pay for it. To my mind, this is what public outreach is all about—not teaching people what archaeologists do, but why archaeology is important in today’s world and making it intelligible in the bargain. Public outreach has become one of American Archaeology’s cherished buzzwords. Like all buzzwords, it has generated a blizzard of spontaneous activity, and much of which can be best described as busywork—useful only to those who engage in it. But, for the most part, it seems as if public outreach activities are going one way, mainstream academic and CRM archaeology another. The one generates coherent prose, which reaches, for the most part, a limited audience, the other creates what can charitably be called “archy-bark.” And like so many barks, this is generally pretty ineffective. The problem is particularly acute in the CRM environment. Many in business and industry are challenging both the

morass of legal requirements and regulations surrounding archaeological resources as well as the expense of complying with them at a time when there are cries for increasing selfsufficiency in oil production. Why is archaeology important, they inquire, especially in areas where the archaeological record is either sparse or unspectacular? Why are we spending huge sums of money on this seemingly irrelevant activity? In a political climate of increased deregulation, of more liberal policies for oil drilling and other activities, they openly question the steadily rising expense of CRM projects, especially when the end-product comes to them couched in dense, technical prose. I find the genre depressingly standardized. Many local summaries of archaeological research claim to be aimed at a wider audience and at clients who know little about archaeology. But closer inspection reveals a few pages of general environmental information, then page after page of arcane projectile-point sequences, radiocarbon dates, and dreary culture history, which make few, if any, concessions to the general reader. Even an expert calls for a slug of scotch and a cold towel when confronted with more than a few pages of this gobbledy-gook. Some CRM clients have complained to me, with justification, that they want to be archaeologically and socially responsible— but what they get for their money does not motivate them to do anything other than fulfill minimal legal requirements. Many CRM projects, especially the larger ones, require some form of public outreach, but these rarely extend to books or other forms of documents written for a wider audience— although there are notable, and rare, exceptions. We are simply not doing enough to fill what is a legitimate demand for up-to-date, accurate, and stimulating summaries of our work aimed at the widest possible audience. In these days of highly technical archaeology and the pernicious publish-or-perish academic culture, good syntheses are sometimes considered a demeaning activity, especially if they are aimed at a broader audience. This is, of course, nonsense, for anyone who has attempted such a work will tell you that


5

ARTICLE

this is the toughest kind of archaeological communication of all. Few of us master the skill, which requires, among other things, an expertise in serious general writing, an ability to look at the larger picture, and a proficiency at navigating between the agendas of experts. Archaeological training does not include such skills, which is a pity from the point of view of the technical literature, but an even greater problem when you consider public outreach. Clearly we will have to address this aspect of public outreach in fresh and innovative ways— and teach fledgling archaeologists how to write. Apart from better writing pedagogy, we need other creative approaches. Oxford University Press gives us one potential strategy. They are about to publish a series of children’s books about major archaeological sites around the world such as Chaco Canyon, which team up a working archaeologist with an expert children’s book writer. The result brings archaeology to a younger audience fluently, while the archaeologist focuses on the technical accuracy of the book and the illustrations. I believe that this approach would work well with more popular syntheses of CRM projects and regional surveys. There are many freelance writers with considerable experience and some scientific background out there, who would be thrilled to work with a professional archaeologist. So far, almost no one has experimented with this approach. Much of what passes as more popular writing in archaeology is still aimed at a relatively narrow constituency of fellow colleagues and readers seriously interested in archaeology—not a large number of people. Success in the future will depend on communicating with very different audiences, especially those with no background in archaeology whatsoever. The solution lies not only in much-improved training in communication and writing skills in graduate schools, but also in enlisting the help of people with the appropriate literary or media expertise—something we have not done with any conspicuous success. Successful public outreach depends on our ability to communicate with normal, intelligent, and literate human beings, not just with ourselves and the converted. So far, we have hardly scratched the surface and still belong to a scientific culture that often considers public outreach demeaning and a second-rate activity. After a lifetime involved in public outreach, I am convinced it is the hardest archaeological skill of all.

Archaeology and Higher Education Times have changed. School curricula in many states now introduce even grade school students to major developments in prehistory and to archaeology. But many students’ first exposure to archaeology of any kind, and to North American archaeology in particular, comes as late as the freshman and sophomore years of college. Introductory archaeology courses have always, and will always, remain one of the primary ways in

6


which we reach out to a broader audience. In this we have been successful over many years, thanks to generations of conscientious and expert teachers. Public consciousness of archaeology owes much to solid introductory teaching over the past half century. Such rising awareness coincides in considerable part with the great expansion of higher education since the 1950s. In recent years, we have heard loud calls to the effect that the undergraduate curriculum in archaeology is out of date and irrelevant to today’s world of CRM, with its need for professionals trained in many other topics as well as archaeological methods and North American archaeology. As so often happens, these concerns, and the rhetoric associated with them, overstate the case. An introductory course is just that, and it has several vital and unchanging objectives: • To make students aware of the importance of archaeology, its role in the contemporary world, and its great fascination. • To give a sound grounding in the basic methods and theoretical approaches of archaeology. In other words, how do archaeologists reconstruct and interpret the past? • To provide a general background in the major developments of human prehistory on a very wide canvas. This means at least some exposure to world prehistory, not just course content that focuses on such narrow topics as eastern North American archaeology or the Southwest. Such a focus comes later on. • To raise awareness of the basic ethics of archaeology, including the notion of stewardship, both for archaeologists and people everywhere. • To supply at least a summary of career opportunities in archaeology, including CRM, and to discuss how one acquires the relevant training. The best introductory courses are just that—an engaging survey of a compelling, ever changing field of study, which deals with important human problems and issues of cultural diversity. Effective public outreach to young people depends on providing such a course at the beginning level, a course designed on the assumption that only a few people will go on and become anthropology majors and even fewer professional archaeologists. No one in the introductory business is engaged in doing anything more than raising public awareness about archaeology. They are not there to provide professional training in CRM, or any other form of archaeology for that matter. To do such things with beginning students is to invite a perpetuation of many of problems confronting today’s archaeology—over-specialization at an early stage, too much scientific mumbo jumbo, and, above all, the perpetuation of a pervasive and still surprisingly widespread value system that hints that if you take an introductory course, you join an exclusive “ingroup” who know all about archaeology.

ARTICLE

Public outreach in undergraduate education means raising awareness of the importance of archaeology and its ethics in today’s world. But, above all, its mission is also to provide students with a grasp of the basic, and fascinating, issues of early human history. To treat introductory courses as anything else is to invite both intellectual disaster—and the creation of a myopic army of archaeological technicians. Such offerings are the most important teaching we do; yet many institutions starve such classes of resources and consider them less important than graduate seminars. With skillful use of interactive media and other innovative teaching methods, introductory archaeology has great potential as a means of public outreach in the future. Upper-division and graduate education are another matter. Juniors and seniors, who may be considering graduate school and obtaining some practical field experience, can benefit from some careful, and highly specific, exposure to technical issues surrounding CRM. And many graduate curricula need massive restructuring to reflect the contemporary realities of North American archaeology as a profession as much as a purely academic discipline. So far, the move toward revamping graduate curricula, especially in research universities, has been glacially slow, despite the open-ended opportunities on the horizon.

AD 1/2 PAGE VERTICAL

Public outreach is one of the most fundamental issues facing archaeology today. In recognizing this, we should be aware that innovative approaches both in the classroom and in the wider public arena are long overdue, expanded use of interactive teaching methods and the Web being among them. And, above all, we have to realize that the best archaeology is written in fluent, jargon-free prose that makes people want to learn about the past, not avoid it because it is incomprehensible.

Geochron Laboratories high-quality radiocarbon dating and stable isotope analyses

C

14

for paleoenvironment and dietary reconstruction, authentification of artwork and antiquities professional staff, quick turn-around more than 35 years experience 711 Concord Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138 USA t: 617-876-3691 f: 617-661-0148 www.geochronlabs.com


7

INSIGHTS

DON’T FORGET THE COOKIES AND THE FRUIT Carol J. Ellick

Carol J. Ellick is founding director of the public programs division at Statistical Research, Inc., in Tucson, Arizona. She is also a program manager of the SRI Foundation, advancing historic preservation through education, training, and research.

I

n 1987, quite by chance, I fell upon a new career—archaeological education. I did not know it at the time, but it would turn out to be an important component of the archaeological profession. At first, archaeological education dragged me along. I was alone, creating materials without a model. Soon, others appeared, and we began working together—setting the stage and writing the guidelines for archaeological education. We began asking questions and trying to answer them. What is archaeological education? What are the concepts? How do we involve the public? More importantly, how do we involve our profession? Maybe the better question is how can “we” help our profession do a better job of communicating the past to the public?

The same is true with outreach and education. The archaeological educator analyzes the data and translates it, giving archaeological information meaning to a specific audience—the public.

For over 10 years now, the importance of archaeological education has grown within the SAA. The Public Education Committee (PEC) has grown from 10 individuals to more than 70. Often, candidates for the SAA Board of Directors tout education and outreach in their position statements. Now that we as a profession have figured out that “it” is important, how do we do “it”? How can archaeologists, cultural resource managers in particular, incorporate public programming into their business practice?

INTEGRATING THE PAST: PUBLIC PROGRAMMING AND CRM CONTRACTS

Educational components within cultural resource management (CRM) projects are mandated by the Historic Sites Act of 1935, the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (as amended), and the Archeological Resources Protection Act of 1988. Educational components within requests for proposals (RFPs) are on the increase, but the majority of people writing the RFPs and proposals are archaeologists, not educators. Education and outreach should therefore be viewed as an archaeological specialty on par with lithic analysis, ceramic analysis, and faunal analysis. Archaeological specialists are essential for compiling, analyzing, and interpreting the technical data within their specialty.

8


Outreach efforts or products are as diverse as the audiences they serve. Educational components must be designed to fit client need, situation, audience, and budget. The product must tell a story about the archaeological process, people, and preservation. Standard educational components written into CRM projects might include: site tours, brochures, slide shows, displays, booklets, or the development of educational materials for the

The SRI Foundation is dedicated to advancing historic preservation through education, training, and research. The foundation offers a series of continuing education workshops for professional archaeologists. Workshop topics include: Section 106 in the New Regulatory Environment, Technical Writing for CRM Professionals, and Integrating the Past: Public Programming and CRM Contracts. Future workshop topics include integrating NEPA and Section 106, principles of tribal consultation, and writing and managing government historic preservation contracts. Workshops are available on-site in a one-day training format that includes lectures, group discussion, and hands-on activities. For more information, contact the SRI Foundation at (505) 892-5587 or [email protected].

SAA COMMITTEES INSIGHTS

and photos illustrating the archaeological process. Project and archaeological information, ethics statements, company information, and business cards should be available for interested persons as they wait for their tour time. • Wander and wonder. Instead of standing at the entrance to the site and telling them all about this wondrous place, break up the information. Welcome the visitors. Acknowledge the sponsors. Explain the safety hazards: “Folks, stay at least 18 inches back from the edge of a pit [hold up hands ‘so wide’ to illustrate]; the surface may look stable, but it is just dirt.” “Watch out for rebar. Hit one of those with your shin, and it will be an experience to remember.” “Water is. . . . Port-o-potties are. . . .” Now, walk out onto the site. Stop at the first feature and wait for everyone to assemble. Begin the story. Keep it light. Avoid jargon. Use graphics, but also encourage them to use their imaginations. Conclude with time for questions. Figure 1: The author giving a site tour to a group of educators. We are examining artifacts (and putting them back where they came from). Photographer: James A. McDonald.

K–12 classroom. While written materials and visual displays involve some public interaction, the main concern with producing these products is adjusting the text or content to the level of the audience. Site tours and the creation of classroom materials, however, pose more specific concerns.

The Site Tour Site tours are an excellent opportunity to convey the current findings and a sense of the archaeological process to the public. Site tours are relatively low-cost and with a minimum of props can be extremely effective. Tours, however, are restricted to ideal circumstances. Safety, among other factors, must be taken into consideration. TIPS FOR AVOIDING MISTAKES

• Many field archaeologists by nature prefer the company of a scorpion in the bottom of their unit to facing an expectant audience. The responsibility of leading tours should be delegated to one individual, and this person should be an extrovert. They should be able to make a circuit of the site with the site director and develop a story based on the artifacts and archaeological features that will transcend dirt. • Props are essential. It is difficult enough for an archaeologist excavating a house to visualize the standing structure. Make the site come alive! Carry a set of illustrations glued to foam core that can be shown as progress is made across the site. A staffed check-in table with a guest book is useful for displaying artifacts

Classroom Materials

Pedagogy is a profession with jargon and professional standards all its own—Bloom’s taxonomy of higher-order thinking skills, performance objectives, content standards, and Howard Gardner’s seven types of intelligence. For archaeological education materials to be usable in the classroom, they must consider educational standards and the needs of teachers and students.

TIPS FOR AVOIDING MISTAKES

• Educational materials should be written by archaeological educators—individuals with training in both content areas. Alternatively, and potentially less effectively, archaeological education materials should be written by a team including an archaeologist and an educator. The educator should be a specialist in curriculum development. Not every set of educational materials that are produced constitutes a curriculum. Most of them are basic lesson plans developed to convey archaeological concepts. Activity guides contain multiple lesson plans, while a curriculum is a complete unit based on educational standards and created to fit into the curricular structure within the state requirements. • Archaeology is not a required subject area, but the components of archaeology—science, math, language arts—and the focus of what we study—social studies, history—are required. Materials should target the state department of education content standards. (These are generally listed on the state department of education website.) Consider targeting the materials to the specific grade-level requirements for the study of state his-


9

INSIGHTS

tory. In Arizona, all fourth and seventh graders must study state history. Which would you prefer: history from a textbook starting with the first Europeans, memorizing names, dates, and places; or learning about the last 12,000 years of cultural history through hands-on activities? The archaeological process mirrors the “scientific method” of inquiry required for science fair projects, making it an ideal teaching tool. • Create materials that will work. Test the materials in the types of classrooms for which they have been designed. Make editorial changes based on comments and then pilot the materials one more time before finalizing them. Allow sufficient time for this process to occur. Take classroom schedules into consideration, and, if at all possible, include the teachers from the initial stage of development.

Budgeting for Archaeological Education When budgeting for site tours, consider hiring a field person who can not only move dirt and write accurate notes, but who also can face an audience and weave a story. Develop the tour component during the proposal stage. Decide what you can afford. The cost of five tours a day, two days a week, for two months is not excessive if scheduled into the later part of a fivemonth field season. To this, add time in the office to advertise tours, develop props, and respond to inquiries. Take the public into consideration. What would be the most convenient days for them to visit the site? If it includes weekends, let your staff know that their work schedule might differ from the strict Monday through Friday schedule. If they are working on a Saturday, their “weekend” should include Sunday and Monday. Chances are, your field person will end up spending approximately three days a week on public programs and two days a week in the field. Material costs associated with site tours are nominal. The old 1⁄2:1⁄4:1⁄4 rule (1⁄2 of the budget for the field, 1⁄4 of the budget for the lab, 1⁄4 of the budget for report production) does not apply to the preparation of a budget for an exclusively outreach-based contract. Beyond the time considerations for project personnel, stipends or honorariums and travel expenses should be included for educators testing the materials. Initiate a project with a team brainstorming session. (Don’t forget to include cookies and fruit in the supply line.) Include a team meeting at the completion of the first stage of development— before testing—and a second meeting to discuss how the testing went—before editing. Other than that, it is thinking, research, writing, and production. If you are considering a webbased product, check with local educators to see if they have web access. You may want to develop both hard-copy and web-based resources.

10


Qualitative and Quantitative Benefits The bottom line is money. It is out there and available for archaeological education efforts, even in a for-profit setting. Government agencies are incorporating the request for public programs into their RFPs. Even if public programming is not written into an RFP, consider including a small outreach effort. Keep it in scale with the project. Pitch the qualitative benefit to both the contractor and the client. Those thank-you notes from the third-grade class you visit are priceless! Post them in your reception area. Give them to the client so they can see the secondary benefit of their compliance project. Every little bit helps. National educational and outreach efforts such as USDA Forest Service Passport in Time program and the Bureau of Land Management Project Archaeology program educate thousands of individuals per year on the scientific method of archaeological research and the importance of preservation. Every outreach effort has a direct effect on stopping vandalism caused by ignorance.

Where to Start There are a number of resources available on archaeological education. If you are interested in more information, you might check out the following two resources as a place to begin:

• The Archaeology Education Handbook: Sharing the Past with Kids, edited by Karolyn Smardz and Shelley J. Smith, 2000, is an SAA book co-published with AltaMira Press. This book is written for archaeologists. It gives practical advice on developing archaeological education materials, implementing programs, and interacting within an educational setting. The volume is divided into five sections: The Culture of Teaching: The Educational System and Educational Theory; The Interface: Archaeologists Working with Educators; The Danger of Zones: Issues in Teaching Archaeology; The Provenience: Archaeological Education in the Real World; and Conclusions and Perspectives. • Presenting Archaeology to the Public: Digging for Truths, edited by John H. Jameson, Jr., 1997 and published by AltaMira Press, provides examples of archaeological education programs that have worked. The book contains four sections: Background; Strategies that Work; Interpreting Archaeology in Cities; and Interpreting Archaeology at Museums, Parks, and Sites. In addition, a 1998 issue of the National Park Service magazine Common Ground (Volume 3, Number 1) is specifically dedicated to outreach programs. For assistance within the SAA, contact Maureen Malloy, Manager, Education and Outreach; the nearly seventy members of the SAA PEC; or the Network of State and Provincial Archaeology Education Coordinators.

GOVERNMENT ARCHAEOLOGY

PUBLIC OUTREACH AT THE MIDWEST ARCHEOLOGICAL CENTER, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE Bruce A. Jones Bruce A. Jones oversees the VIP and Outreach/Education programs at the Midwest Archeological Center.

F

rom the narrow perspective of a single National Park Service (NPS) archaeological center, we acknowledge that our effectiveness in accomplishing archaeology and arguing for archaeological issues depends greatly upon our constituency. Unfortunately, we most often worry first about support for our programs from within our own agency—from within the larger NPS. But even when the threats come from within and when we see archaeology and historic preservation attacked on a larger scale outside our center domain, we wish for a legion of like-minded followers from outside the NPS to come to our aid. I am convinced that the strongest kind of assistance will eventually come from a public that has been personally involved enough in archaeology to appreciate its values. But while our archaeological education and outreach programs are far stronger than they were 20 years ago, we still have a lot of work ahead of us. Given the gap that our organization has always experienced between funding that we need and the funding that we receive, the outreach and education programs at the Midwest Archeological Center are necessarily bootleg and opportunistic. Nowhere near as large, well-organized, or integrated as those of other institutions, the Center outreach effort simply takes advantage of the diverse archaeological resources and opportunities that present themselves in order to take the message to the public that cultural resources abound, they are valuable, and they are worth protecting.

Outreach at the Center The Center’s outreach includes both a volunteer program and a program of archaeological presentations and assistance. The latter efforts have taken a wide variety of forms. They have included a week-long summer seminar with middle school and high school teachers who wish to use archaeology to teach English, foreign languages, math, and art, as well as the usual social sci-

ence topics. We have provided funding assistance to neighboring states’ annual archaeology week posters and lecture programs and paid for refurbishing archaeological travelling trunks at the Nebraska and Kansas State Historical Societies. We cosponsored a visit to Lincoln, Nebraska, by Brian Fagan, who in turn gave a public presentation to a packed house of more than 300 individuals. We have supported the production of written materials and videos for the lay public, the best being People of the Willows and The Mouse Raid, two beautiful publications derived from a large multi-year program at Knife River Indian Villages National Historic Site. The Center staff routinely gives 15–30 slide and PowerPoint® programs a year to everyone from local second-grade classes to senior citizens’ church groups on topics requested from a menu of archaeological offerings of personal project research that may be quickly and easily prepared. Center Archaeologist Doug Scott’s programs on the archaeology of the Little Bighorn are perennial favorites. Curiously, so have been programs on the archaeology of the Vietnam War. We acknowledge current philosophies in education with hands-on efforts such as an exercise in pottery manufacture that Center Archaeologist Ann Bauermeister presented in a science program for eighth-grade girls.

The Volunteers-in-Park Program The Center’s enlistment of volunteers is part of the larger NPS Volunteers-in-Parks program, which accesses a far-flung network of “friends” to accomplish a great deal of work in interpretation, resources management, and administration. The Center receives a whopping $700 annually from the NPS to help defray some of the personal expenses of the volunteers who participate in our projects, and it does not go very far. But remuneration is not what drives the people who come to work with us—it is the experience that they want.


11

GOVERNMENT ARCHAEOLOGY

Figure 1. Lincoln Public Schools Science Focus High School students mapping artifacts in Yellowstone’s Firehole River.

Over the last 12 months, 70 volunteers ranging from high school students to retired accountants contributed more than 5,200 hours of assistance to Center projects. They assisted in test excavations at the Hopeton Earthworks at Hopewell Culture National Historical Park in Ohio and walked the hills of Wind Cave National Park in South Dakota to help conduct basic archaeological inventory. Engaged in a program designed by P.A.S.T. Foundation Director Analies Corbin, 12 students and teachers from the Lincoln Public Schools Science Focus High School waded into the Firehole River in Yellowstone National Park with Center Archaeologist Bill Hunt to map artifacts from the 19th-century Marshall Hotel (Figure 1). The greatest single project assistance came from 19 military and Civil War buffs who donated almost 2,400 volunteer hours to Center inventories at Pea Ridge National Military Park in Arkansas and Wilson’s Creek National Battlefield in Missouri. All of these people came for the pleasure of the fieldwork and the thrill of discovery—the personal glimpse of history and landscape that is not available to everyone. Their archaeological

12


questions seemed unending, and they brought them to us at any time of the day or night. But they have pursued their responsibilities in the field or the lab with a fervor that would put some of us to shame. That’s what they get—how do we, the Center staff, fare in this arrangement? Very well, indeed. The assistance rendered by our volunteers last year represented a contribution of almost $50,000 in free salaries to projects that are routinely underfunded. To us, this is the equivalent of an additional large Center research project that we now do not have to argue for. Suffice it to say that, without the help of our volunteers, we would get much, much less accomplished in the field and in the lab—it would be an incredible waste not to tap into this remarkable source of energy and enthusiasm. And we learn from them, too. Their backgrounds, education, and life experiences are exceedingly diverse—they took the college courses that many of us ran from, and they do not need to

>GOVERNMENT ARCHAEOLOGY, continued on page 44

ARTICLE

RESOURCE GUIDE TO U.S. FEDERAL AGENCY PUBLIC OUTREACH AND EDUCATION FOR ARCHAEOLOGY Barbara J. Little Barbara J. Little is with the NPS Archeology & Ethnography Program.

I

n response to legal mandates and due to the dedicated efforts of a number of individuals, government agencies have been increasing their public outreach efforts. Their programs range widely in scope and provide invaluable resources for archaeologists and the public. Some agencies are well-known for their outreach and education efforts while others may be less familiar. Many activities are local; others are regional or national in scope. The General Services Administration, for example, collaborates with its client agencies and others to sponsor exhibits and has conducted other outreach, such as producing videos about data-recovery projects. Some regulatory agencies do not carry out their own programs but support public outreach in other ways. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is one of these agencies, often requiring licensees to develop programs about site significance and protection. Many outreach efforts involve interagency cooperation. The Army Environmental Center with the support of the National Park Service and the participation of other agencies promoted the Boy Scout Archaeological Merit Badge last summer at the National Boy Scout Jamboree, which was held at Fort A. P. Hill, Virginia. Occurring only once every four years, the Jamboree draws an estimated 40,000 Boy Scouts from all over the country and from several foreign countries, as well as an estimated 200,000 visitors. The Jamboree hosts numerous activities and experiences for the scouts, chief among them a Merit Badge Midway where dozens of booths offer instruction in numerous merit badges. Several agencies participate in site stewardship programs and contribute to state archaeology weeks and months. Their state offices are the best source for information about public outreach activities. Contact, for example, state departments of transportation, BLM offices, and offices of the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. Similarly, contact individual Defense installations as well as individual forests and parks about their programs.

Efforts by government agencies include websites, exhibits, interpretive trails, tours, posters, brochures, books, talks to civic groups, K–12 educational resources, and myriad volunteer opportunities. There are partnerships with colleges and universities, museums, local governments, non-profits, and others. Listed below are some highlights, although this list is not exhaustive.

General • Federal Resources for Environmental Excellence (FREE) acts as a clearinghouse for educational resources supported by agencies. Visit http://www.ed.gov/free/. • Visit the Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) at http://www.askeric.org/. This clearinghouse includes a wide range of resources, including lesson plans. Search by subject under social studies and anthropology. See the 2000 ERIC Digest on teaching archaeology. • Although most “environmental education” focuses on natural resources, archaeologists will find good information through the Federal Task Force on Environmental Education. Visit http://www.epa.gov/enviroed/. • There is also a First Government site for children. History and Science are among the topics at http://kids.gov/, which is the “U.S. government interagency Kid’s Portal.” Agencies, organizations, and commercial sites are included.

Department of Agriculture FOREST SERVICE

• The link http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/heritage/ leads to information about the Forest Service Heritage Program, including links to Passport in Time (PIT), the well-known volunteer program supporting archaeological and historical research, and Heritage Expeditions on national forests. • The agency’s national strategy for its heritage program may be found at http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/heritage/heritage_strategy.shtml.


13

ARTICLE

• Visit individual forests, such as Tongass NF in Alaska at http://www.fs.fed.us/r10/tongass/forest_facts/resources/ heritage/heritage.html and Kaibab NF in Arizona at http:// www.fs.fed.us/r3/kai/business/manage_res_archy.html.

magazine, which reaches approximately 80,000 teachers and hundreds of thousands of students. Contact [email protected].

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)

• Visit http://www.usbr.gov/cultural/ for links to resources for educators and other outreach information.

• Some state offices have active cultural resource outreach programs that include both K–12 activities and outreach to organizations such as civic groups. Contact the state office to find out more.

Department of Interior BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT (BLM)

• BLM recently launched its new website, Cultural Heritage and Fossil Resources on the Public Lands, at http://www.blm.gov/ heritage/. Visit the site to read the 2001 Heritage Education Strategic Plan, the report on cultural resources at risk, and to find other resources. • Individual states and field offices also host websites. For example, visit the Alaska State Office (http://www.ak.blm.gov/ ak930/cultrl/html), Fairbanks (http://aurora.ak.blm.gov/CRNFO/CR-home.html), Idaho (http://www.id.blm.gov/archaeology/index.htm), and the Anasazi Heritage Center (http:// www.co.blm.gov/ahc/teach.htm). • Through the heritage education program Project Archaeology, BLM builds awareness of cultural resources and teaches young people about their importance and fragility. Visit http:// www.co.blm.gov/ahc/projarc.htm. BLM has recently formed a partnership with The Watercourse, a nonprofit organization at Montana State University, to strengthen Project Archaeology. • Look for BLM Environmental Education Teacher Resources at http://www.blm.gov/education/00_resources/index.html and BLM: Environmental Education Volunteer opportunities at http://www.blm.gov/volunteer/index.html. • The BLM also has entered into a partnership with the National Trust for Historic Preservation to share their expertise in outreach to the public. For more information, contact [email protected]. • BLM’s Museum Partnership Program supports the scientific and educational use of museum collections originating from public lands. Projects funded to date include production of permanent exhibits, object conservation, exhibit upgrades, development of “finding” guides, development of web pages, artifact dating, research, and public education and outreach. Contact [email protected]. • The BLM has had a 10-year long partnership with the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) to produce articles on archaeology, paleontology, and ecosystems for science teachers. These articles are published in NSTA’s Science and Children

14


BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

• See the Visitor Center’s exhibits of material from the Steamboat Bertrand Collection at the DeSoto National Wildlife Refuge in Iowa. Visit the website at http://refuges.fws.gov/ bertrand/index.htm. • A poster/brochure is available from the Fish and Wildlife Service that is titled National Wildlife Refuges: Conserving Habitat and History, an Overview of Historic and Archaeological Sites. MINERALS MANAGEMENT SERVICE

• See the Teacher’s Resource accompanying Historic Shipwrecks in the Gulf of Mexico at http://www.gomr.mms.gov/ homepg/lagniapp/shipwreck/. NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

• Two new SAA brochures, Experience Archaeology and The Path to Becoming an Archaeologist, were produced under a cooperative agreement between the NPS and SAA. • Common Ground: Archeology and Ethnography in the Public Interest is published by the Archeology & Ethnography program. Contact [email protected] or joe_flanagan@ nps.gov. • The Archeology & Ethnography program website offers extensive information for the public and information about public outreach. Visit http://www.cr.nps.gov/aad/ for teacher resources, opportunities to participate, on-line courses, extensive links and more. • Find out about the Southeast Archeological Center’s Public Interpretation Initiative at http://www.cr.nps.gov/seac/ edu-out.htm. • The Midwest Archaeological Center recently reprinted the children’s book The Mouse Raid about life in the Hidatsa earthlodge villages. This book is being distributed to K-12 schools teaching Native American Units. • Parks as Classrooms (PAC) programs provide learning opportunities both on- and off-site. Resources include curriculumbased education programs, AV materials, accredited teacher training and workshops, traveling trunks and kits, and teacher and student resource guides. Visit http://www.nps.gov/ interp/parkclass/html. • Visit The Learning Place to learn more about interpretation in the National Park Service: http://www.nps.gov/interp/learn.htm.

ARTICLE

17-year-old Kyle Rood screening at an archaeological site known as Headbanger Cave. This is an ongoing public project done with the cooperation of the Utah Division of State History–Antiquities Section, Utah State Parks and Recreation, and the Utah Statewide Archaeological Society (photographer: Ronald Rood).

• The Teaching with Historical Places program at http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/twhp/topic.htm provides lesson plans and an author’s packet, and offers a curriculum framework. • A National Register of Historic Places bulletin also provides useful guidance for interpretation. Telling the Stories: Planning Effective Interpretive Programs for Properties Listed in the National Register of Historic Places may be found at http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/. • The Volunteers-In-Parks program may be contacted via http://www.nps.gov/volunteer/. Another site with volunteer opportunities is hosted by the Midwest Archeological Center at http://www.mwac.nps.gov/vol_op/. • Stewardship assistance for the public is provided by Strategies for Protecting Archeological Sites on Private Lands, which can be found at http://www2.cr.nps.gov/pad/strategies/. • The Southeast Utah Group of parks is cooperating with the College of Eastern Utah and other state agencies to develop a new curriculum for archaeological site stabilization. The college anticipates offering both a two-year degree and a 12-month certificate.

Department of Defense ARMY

Numerous Army installations have public outreach programs, sponsoring speakers, exhibits, and tours for local communities and Army personnel. Examples of installations with active public outreach programs include the following: • Fort Bliss, Texas offers public forums on post and in the local communities, publishes brochures describing the history and archaeology on the installation, participates in events such as Earth Day and Texas Archeology Awareness month, and encourages volunteers (active duty personnel and family members) to work at their Curatorial Facility assisting with collections. For the history of Fort Bliss and its National Register Historic District, see http://147.71.210.23/adamag/district/district.htm. • Fort Belvoir, Virginia presented interactive history programs for local organizations and schools during National Public Lands day and created a series of outdoor exhibits as a public educational tool. An illustrated history of Fort Belvoir, from over 8,000 years ago to the present, is available at http:// www.belvoir.army.mil/ (click on About Fort Belvoir and Historic Fort Belvoir).


15

ARTICLE

• Fort Benning, Georgia completed and distributed its popular history, Fort Benning: The Land and the People, and a brochure, The Past is Always Present, describing the history and archaeology of the installation. These two publications and the installation’s Public Awareness and Education Plan are available at http://www.cr.nps.gov/seac/benpopvl.htm. • Fort Drum, New York has implemented a number of public awareness and education programs about cultural resources for local communities and academic institutions nationwide. Activities include affiliations with a number of universities, hosting field trips, and preparing traveling exhibits for celebrations such as Earth Day. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

• Public outreach activities are carried out by individual districts. For example, the Pittsburgh District maintains a website, http://www.lrp.usace.army.mil/, with information on a current data recovery excavation at Leetsdale, Pennsylvania, and other District cultural resource activities. • The Corps volunteer clearinghouse may be found at http://www.orn.usace.army.mil/volunteer/default.html, or call 1-800-865-8337. NAVY

• The Navy’s participation, education, and outreach programs are varied. Most are local efforts undertaken by installations working with their communities. The Underwater Archaeology Branch of the Naval Historical Center undertakes broader national and international initiatives. Visit this branch at http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/nhcorg12.htm and its Conservation Laboratory at http://www.history.navy.mil/ branches/org12-10.htm.

conduct escorted public tours of these sites (http://www.maturango.org/default.html). • Also see http://www.nawcwpns.navy.mil/~epo/crm.html.

Smithsonian Institution • Current and back issues of AnthroNotes are available on the web at http://www.nmnh.si.edu/anthro/outreach/anthnote/ anthback.html. Each edition of this newsletter for teachers from the Department of Anthropology at the National Museum of Natural History includes Teacher’s Corner and other resources. • For links to resources on K-12 education, see http://www.sil.si.edu/SILPublications/Anthropology-K12/. • The Anthropology Outreach Office maintains a listing of fieldwork opportunities across the country at http:// www.nmnh.si.edu/departments/anthro.html/outreach/sumop p01.html as well as learning activities and bibliographies at http://www.nmnh.si.edu/anthro/outreach/outrch1.html.

Department of Transportation State DOTs use federal-aid funds for highway projects to fund public outreach efforts such as field camps for kids, classroom kits for teachers, public site visits, brochures, and videos. Contact the state DOT for information.

Postscript In compiling this guide, I requested information from the agencies that annually report on archaeological activities. The shutdown of email and internet access at the Department of Interior, still in effect as I finalize the list, may have prevented some agencies from getting current information to me.

• The main Navy Museum, which contains underwater archaeological exhibits, may be found at http://www.history.navy.mil/ branches/nhcorg8.htm. • Most bases do not have websites that discuss their archaeology program, but there are a few websites that discuss the important sites such as Santa Elena at the Marine Corps Recruit Depot on Parris Island. See http://www.cla.sc.edu/sciaa/staff/depratterc/newweb.htm. • The Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake naval station recently signed a cooperative agreement with the California State University at Bakersfield to encourage graduate students to study the nationally significant cultural resources on the base for their master’s theses. There is already considerable professional archaeological interest in the sites on NAWS China Lake, which include Big and Little Petroglyph canyons within the Coso Rock Art National Register of Historic Places District and National Historic Landmark. The installation has a long-standing cooperative agreement with the local Maturango Museum to

16


Achill Field School ad 1/4 page b/w pick up from November 2001 issue, page 7

WORKING TOGETHER

APPLIED ARCHAEOLOGY ON THE CANADIAN PLAINS Jack Brink Jack Brink is the Curator of Archaeology at the Provincial Museum of Alberta.

Y

ou wouldn’t think dust could rise that high into a blue prairie sky. Not from just the passing of a vehicle. But on the sun-baked dirt roads that wind through the Porcupine Hills of southwestern Alberta, a plume of dust explodes from behind my car like a dirty, brown river. The wind howls here, as it always does, the rough fescue grassland rolling more like the pitching of an ocean than of deeply rooted prairie plants. I have crested the ridge that hides Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump and its remarkable interpretive center, and I begin a slow descent into the valley of the Oldman River. It lies below me, shimmering in the early morning light, set against the massive expanse of the towering Livingstone Range. Ahead lies the Peigan camp, a part of the mighty Blackfoot Nation. This was buffalo country. You can still pick out gleaming white spots of sun-bleached bone set against the dark base of distant cliffs and hills. Now it is cattle country, the unbroken land retaining thousands of drive-lane cairns that fed the great buffalo jumps, as well as medicine wheels, tipi rings, and eagle trapping pits. Ranching lays a soft hand on the landscape, and you can still picture the time of the buffalo—the teaming herds on the vast prairies and the great Plains Indian hunters. History is so close here you can reach out and touch it. I have shared coffee with elders who were raised by their grandparents—people who hunted buffalo. Water is always conspicuous on the High Plains, its presence marked by dark ribbons of green. Such a stark, snake-like ribbon unfolds before me as I crest the final break of the upland prairie and head into the Oldman Valley. It is early fall. In a land overloaded with stunning scenery this may be the pinnacle. The sky has a snap-your-fingers sharpness to it, and a cobalt blue depth like another dimension. The leaves of the cottonwoods in the valley are on fire. You are simply a fool if you don’t stop on the occasional ridge crest and take in the magnificence of what stretches out before you. I at least slow down for the views; I have been down these roads countless times (bad excuse for not stopping), and I am running a little late (not much better excuse), as I often do, for my appearance in the Peigan camp. Ahead a spot in the dark green ribbon is punctured by triangular white sails streaming from a tangle of tall poles—the tops of

a dozen tipis set among the cottonwoods in the Oldman valley. I point the car toward the tops of the poles and head across the prairie. For six years now, I have been making the 1,000-km round trip from my home to the Peigan camp, repeating the trip two or three times each fall within the span of a couple weeks. It’s a grind, but one that I have decided is worth the effort. The camps are the brainchild of Reg Crow Shoe, director of the Oldman River Cultural Centre for the Peigan reserve. The great cultural and socioeconomic gap between Native and non-Native people is a problem everywhere, but especially so in certain professional fields like health, law enforcement, and justice. Some of the greatest conflicts between the two worlds emerge from these sectors of society. In consideration of this, Reg felt that progress could be made by holding an intensive training program in the heart of the Native world. Rather than cross-table gatherings in hotel boardrooms, Reg proposed to bring the practitioners of select professions to the reserve setting, camping in a remote spot along the beautiful Oldman River. To create a certain ambience and spirit, the concept of the tipi camp for training in cultural sensitivity arose. Each camp lasts four days, and each is devoted to a specific professional group. So one camp will be for city police officers and Royal Canadian Mounted Police from nearby communities. Another is for nurses and health care providers from surrounding hospitals. And yet another is for people employed in the criminal justice system, and so on. The participants stay in tipis erected for them—sometimes by them—and a giant cook tent provides the daily meals. The purpose of the camps is to give the participants exposure to a wide range of aspects of aboriginal life in western Canada, in particular to address the often strained encounters between these professions and the Native groups that make up a disproportionate percentage of their work load. The goal is simple: to build some understanding and rapport between people who are frequently at odds, and to examine causes and suggest solutions. To achieve this, Reg has each day filled with lectures and activities ranging from the serious—prayers and ceremonies at sun-


17

WORKING TOGETHER

Figure 1. Cross-Cultural tipi camp on the Peigan reserve, Alberta.

rise and sunset—to light-hearted—hand games and storytelling in the evenings. The core of the program rests with a series of speakers. Reg handles a good portion of this, talking about aboriginal decision-making processes, concepts of right and wrong, and traditional forms of punishment and social control. Other elders come and talk about the importance of sweats, after which everyone heads out to the sweat lodge. An elder woman discusses the role of women in traditional society. Another elder male will talk about the importance of the spiritual world and ceremonial practice. He might relate how this powerful and enduring part of culture can be used to help heal those in the prison system. Another elder will talk about the mission school years, when Native youth were moved from their families, and the lingering effect this has had on the generation that felt punished for their heritage. Around the campfire at night the participants witness and join in the great aboriginal enthusiasm for gaming and humor and experience the beauty of watching starlight filter through the walls of a tipi. So where does a prehistoric archaeologist fit into the contemporary focus of the training sessions? Reg is an expansive thinker. From years of working together on the development of the UNESCO World Heritage site of Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump, he knows that archaeology can contribute much to everyone’s understanding of Native culture. He acknowledges that

18


archaeologists possess knowledge that is of a different nature than what he and other elders contribute. For example, while Reg can sing the ceremonial songs used to bring great herds of bison to the kill sites, he looks to archaeologists to help explain the patterned remains at these ancient kills, and how stone tools were made and used. Most importantly, Reg knows that no true understanding of the contemporary situation of Native people can be achieved without an exploration of the deep roots of Native history. This is where I come in. I bring props with me. A 10,000-year-old spear point, an exquisitely made arrowhead, some stone material that has been traded over 1000 km to reach Alberta, some bits of pottery, and maybe a carved stone pipe bowl. I always bring original objects because when I pass them around the circle, I want people to know they are holding valuable, unique items made by fellow human beings countless generations ago. And for the greater part of the archaeological world that won’t fit inside a tipi, I bring photographs: colour pictures of tipi rock rings and rows of drive lane cairns, buffalo jumps with deep stratified bone deposits, beautiful red ochre pictographs, mysterious medicine wheels, and a lonely vision quest structure. My objectives are two-fold. First, I want the participants to experience the wonder of ancient aboriginal culture. Alberta lacks

WORKING TOGETHER

dramatic surface features, such as grand residential ruins. As a result, most people think there is little evidence of Native history save arrowheads. My job is to make the group aware of the breadth and scope of ancient culture, and to show that a subtle archaeological record can tell an impressive story. My second goal is to link this great story to the modern situation of most Native groups. Though seemingly disconnected, I promise the audience I will draw the two together. And for the next couple hours, I talk about the people who walked this land and who left behind such a remarkable legacy. I tell of a 10,000-year-old bison trap where stealth and knowledge of bison behavior enabled repeated successful kills; where a seemingly innocuous low ridge and the correct wind direction sealed the fate of the bison. Moving forward in time I describe a typical buffalo jump where knowledge of killing large game had reached truly industrial proportions, where such tricks as mimicking the sound and motion of a bison calf inspired awe among the first European witnesses. I tell of locally found artifacts made from materials derived from the West Coast, the Central Plains, the Great Lakes, and the Eastern Woodlands. I encourage people to try and think back thousands of years and imagine the hand-to-hand exchange as a piece of Oregon obsidian slowly making its way to Alberta. In the tipi, a small piece of obsidian makes it way from hand to hand around the group. I talk of one of the continent’s great rock art sites: Writing-OnStone. With thousands of carved and painted images set in a stunning eroded landscape, this place alone could fill the tipi with magic. I tell how some Natives believe that birds peck out the petroglyphs with their beaks and how others say the spirits made the art as a means for Native people to see their fate and fortune. I use ancient art as a way to show the great range of cultural complexity, far exceeding simple subsistence, that thrived on the windswept prairies. I pass around photographs of medicine wheels. One of the most enigmatic, popularized, and mythologized of all archaeological sites, Alberta has most of the known wheels in North America. Some cover the size of several football fields and consist of thousands of stones. Some were being constructed along with the Great Pyramids nearly 4,500 years ago, others built in the mid1900s by people still remembered. I discuss the theories of their origin and use, and how I often find sweetgrass and tobacco among the rocks, indicative of their continuing importance to Native people. I show a picture of the rugged, snow-capped Rocky Mountains and ask if this hostile land would have been beyond the realm of hunting/gathering people. Then I pass around photographs of a solitary vision quest site perched on a rocky ridge at 10,000 feet, situated precisely to provide a stunning view of what must have seemed like the entire universe. The intent of my review is not to provide a short course in Alberta archaeology, but rather to inspire. In a land that lacks pyra-

mids, cities, and great buildings, the point is to show that the range and breadth of pre-contact expression is one of remarkable adaptation and achievement in the face of enormous challenges. Almost universally, those attending the seminar think of ancient people as barely eking out an existence; the thought of cultural fluorescence would seem impossible. Yet how else to explain beautiful red ochre pictographs in a canyon overhang, or a vision quest structure near the top of the Rocky Mountains? The point of bringing this hidden world to the Peigan tipi camp is to make them appreciate that for more than 500 generations, a people didn’t just survive, they excelled. And in so doing, they left behind a stirring legacy, every bit as inspirational and evocative as a temple or ruined city. Then comes the challenging part: providing a link between the vibrant but ancient world and the often difficult and strained encounters between Native people and the justice system, police forces, social and health care workers—precisely those people gathered in the tipi. To many of the Western-raised professional workers, Native people are pretty much like us. They drive pick-up trucks, wear blue jeans and cowboy boots, speak English, and carry Western money and shop in the same stores. If they are so much like other non-Natives, then why do they seem to have a greater degree of difficulty with police, social workers, and the justice system? Of course, there are a multitude of causes grounded in a variety of complex social, political, and economic issues. I maintain that history, through archaeology, holds a part of the answer. Having just described such a rich, rewarding, and complete universe of aboriginal culture, I ask the gathering to consider the almost instantaneous collapse of this world. I contrast 11,000 years of adaptation and adjustment to a couple hundred years of upheaval and chaos. I talk about the decimation by disease, the destruction caused by alcohol, the disappearance of the great herds of bison, and the appearance of a new people determined to settle the once wild land. Yet I know that these statements are too abstract for people to empathize with and to relate to. So I try to convey what the shuddering collapse of a culture might be like through more personal connection, by positing the demise of our own lifestyle. It must seem farfetched at first, but I ask the audience to consider the analogy. I liken the end of the New World aboriginal cultures to the arrival in our own time of people from another planet. Suddenly we are no longer in charge of our own fate. Whatever we did to achieve pride in ourselves, status in our societies, respect in our families will be taken away. We are told that we won’t practice our old religions—the new race has others that it tells us are far superior. And our children won’t go to school like they did but instead will be instructed by the new race in matters said to be far more important. There will be punishment for continuing to speak a language that has been around for thousands of years; a better one will be provided.


19

WORKING TOGETHER

The cumulative point of the presentation is simple: that the difficult situations many Native people find themselves in today must in some ways be related to the staggering loss—chronologically in a blink of an eye—of so much of their ancient way of life. My goal is to generate some understanding for the contemporary situation through knowledge of where a people have come from. Most Westerners probably think that the Plains Indians accomplished little over the millennia—no great architecture, no true “civilization”—therefore, they didn’t really lose that much with European contact, and in fact maybe they came out ahead in view of the superiority of Western civilization. Our job is to use our knowledge of the past to correct this mistaken impression. Archaeology plays a vital role by re-creating, with as much fidelity as possible, the full scope of a proud and ancient society. Even closed inside a tipi we can take people to times and places beyond their imagination, and as such have the power to create awe, inspiration, and respect. It is a gift that most other disciplines can only be jealous of.

Figure 2. Buffalo tipi design, painted and owned by Reg Crowshoe, seen from inside.

And where we were free to move about the country, now we will be placed in and restricted to small plots of land. I want those in the tipi to think for a moment about what their own lives would be like if almost every thing of value were to be taken from them. I ask them, if an alien race subjugated us, would it be surprising if we did not rise each morning with enthusiasm? Might not many of us sink into depression and frequent the darker side of the world? Might not many of us seek solace in substances that allow you, at least momentarily, to escape the world that is not of your making and no longer relevant? And as a result of these tendencies, would we not break many rules of the new masters and be punished in proportions far exceeding our miniscule population? I then return to the freshness of history on the western High Plains. Just 200 years ago, there was virtually no evidence of Europeans in the West, and about 125 years ago Blackfoot Indians still rode out in search of the last herds of buffalo. Should we expect Native people to have gotten over the impact of a virtual implosion of their culture, one that had withstood 11,000 years of challenges, in a single century? I ask those assembled in the tipi to consider the near total loss of our own culture and to ask what kind of time and healing might be required for us to become comfortable, productive, and an integral part of some new world order.

20


A few years ago, Kelly (1998) stated that archaeology will become applied anthropology or it will become nothing, and that the primary purpose of our discipline is to end racism. Strong statements. I remember how those words sent me looking back over a thirty-year career asking what had I done that made a difference. These trips to the tipi camp on the Oldman River have made a difference, hopefully to the participants but certainly to me. They have taught me that our wealth of knowledge about the past can be a positive force in shaping attitudes toward living people. They have reinforced the belief that careful recovery and scrutiny of small vestiges of once thriving cultures do play into the grander scheme of improving the human condition. They have strengthened my pride in being an archaeologist. Late in the day, the sun rakes sideways across this magnificent land and washes everything in a soft golden light. As I drive back out of the Oldman valley and climb into the Porcupines, I pull an envelope from my pocket—the one Reg pressed into my hand as we said goodbye. In it is a crisp $100 dollar bill, and it will go into my slim museum budget. It’s the same as what he pays the elders who come to teach, and to sweat, and play hand games, and tell stories, and to sing with the drum. I take the money, because in this corner of the High Plains, respect works both ways.

References Cited Kelly, R. Native Americans and Archaeology: A Vital Partnership. SAA Bulletin 16(4):24–26.

ARTICLE

THE COLORADO COAL FIELD WAR ARCHAEOLOGY PROJECT The Ludlow Collective The Ludlow Collective for 2001 included Karin Burd (University of Colorado), Bonnie Clark (Berkeley), Phil Duke (Fort Lewis College), Amie Gray (University of Denver), Michael Jacobson (Binghamton University), Randall McGuire (Binghamton University), Paul Reckner (Binghamton University), Dean Saitta (University of Denver), Mark Walker (Binghamton University), and Margaret Wood (Syracuse University).

O

n the morning of April 20, 1914, Colorado National Guard troops opened fire on a tent colony of 1,200 striking coal miners at Ludlow, Colorado. The miners returned fire. The shooting continued until nightfall, when the National Guard swept through the camp looting and setting it aflame. When the smoke cleared, four of the attackers and 20 of the camp’s inhabitants were dead, including two women and 11 children. The Ludlow Massacre was the most violent and best-known episode of the 1913–1914 Colorado Coal Field Strike. The Colorado Coal Field War Archaeology Project is a long-term project sponsored by Binghamton University, The University of Denver, and Fort Lewis College to research the Ludlow camp and the 1913–1914 strike. Our ultimate goal is to integrate archaeological data with archival information to better understand the day-to-day lives of the Colorado miners and their families. These people chose to strike because of the deprivation of their everyday lived experience, and the strike was ultimately broken not by the violence of the National Guard, but by the increased deprivation of the strike. The Ludlow Massacre was a seminal event in U.S. labor history. The killing of women and children by National Guard troops shocked the nation and helped turn management policies away from direct confrontation with strikers to strategies of co-option of workers demands. It spurred John D. Rockefeller Jr. to start the country’s first important company union and the first large-scale corporate public relations campaign. The strike involved many significant personages in labor history, including Mary “Mother” Jones, Upton Sinclair, and John Reed, and it created others, such as Louis Tikas. Today, the United Mine Workers of America (UMWA) maintains the Ludlow site as a shrine to the struggle of labor in this country. The major historical works on the strike have mined the rich archival record of documents and photos on the events of 1913–1914. These studies have focused on the events, strike leaders, and organizational work of the UMWA in the strike. They all agree that the families who went out on strike did so because the conditions of their day-to-day lives had become intolerable. Yet none of these studies provide us with more than an anecdotal understanding of what these conditions were before, during, and after the strike. Archaeological research provides one means to gain a richer and more systematic understanding of the everyday lived experience of the Colorado miners and their families. The strikers unknowingly left a record of this experience in the ground. Linking this information with the archival sources gives us a useful way to reconstruct that experience. By applying these methods to company towns occupied before the strike, the strikers’ tent camps, and the company towns re-opened after the strike, we can talk about the key differences in that experience that led to the strike and to its failure.

Ludlow and the Colorado Coal Field Strike of 1913–1914 In 1913, Colorado was the eighth-largest coal-producing state in the United States. Most of this produc-


21

ARTICLE

tion centered on the bituminous coal field around Trinidad, Colorado. The largest company mining coal in this region was the Rockefeller-owned Colorado Fuel and Iron Company (CF&I). The company employed approximately 14,000 workers, 70% of whom were foreign born. The conditions of the mines and of miners’ lives were appalling; in 1912, the accident rate for Colorado mines was double the national average. Miners lived in rude, isolated mountain towns owned by the company, which controlled the workers through the company store and by using mine guards as their private police force. Unhappiness with the conditions came to a head in 1913, and the UMWA launched a massive campaign to unionize the coal miners. At the same time, the company brought in the Baldwin Felts Figure 1. The Ludlow UMWA camp before the massacre (Photo courtesy of Colorado Historical Society). Detective Agency to violently suppress the organizing efforts. The strike began on September 23, 1913, with 90–95% of the miners leaving the shafts and the company forcing all of the strikers from the company towns. The strikers streamed into UMWA tent camps, of which Ludlow was the largest (Figure 1). On two occasions, one at Ludlow and the other at Forbes, company guards fired into the camps, and on October 28, 1913, the governor of Colorado called out the National Guard. The Guard employed company police and increasingly became more antagonistic to the strikers. On April 20, 1914, the Guard attacked the Ludlow camp. Enraged by the attack, the strikers took up arms, isolated the Guard at Ludlow and Walsenberg, attacked mines and company towns, and seized control of most of the mining district. Finally, after 10 days of war, President Wilson sent federal troops into the region to restore order. The strike continued until December 1914, when UMWA called it off because the strike fund was exhausted.

Archaeological Research at Ludlow We have conducted excavations at the site of Ludlow every summer since 1997 and in 1998 to 1999 at the CF&I town of Berwind. The Colorado Historical Society–State Historical Fund has supported our research through the University of Denver and provided funds in 1998 for the construction of a permanent interpretive display at the Ludlow site. Most of our excavations have taken place at the Ludlow site. We established a grid over the entire area of the camp (approximately 72,000 m2) and did surface counts of artifacts at 10-m intervals over this entire area to map surface artifact distributions. These distributions match the plan of the camp as shown in photographs. From photos of burned and demolished tents, we know that the tents were constructed over 2-in x 6-in joists laid directly on the ground to support a wooden platform and frame. Once covered with canvas, the strikers piled a ridge of dirt around the base of the tent, often to a height of 2–3 feet. Our excavations in 1998 uncovered one of these platforms, which was defined by stains in

22


ARTICLE

the earth, remains of the shallow excavation, and rows of nails that followed the joists (Figure 2). We have also excavated a trash-filled latrine and two of the cellars that the miners and their families dug beneath their tents. Berwind was a CF&I town located in a canyon near Ludlow that was occupied before and after the strike. CF&I built the town in 1892 and abandoned it in 1931. The remains of houses and privies are clearly visible in Berwind. In 1998 and 1999, we made a detailed map of the community and conducted excavations in two discrete residential neighborhoods. One of these neighborhoods was occupied before the strike and the other after the strike.

Public Programs An important aspect of the project is public education. The events of Ludlow have considerable popular appeal for several reasons. They are of a recent past that people can relate Figure 2: Excavated tent platform at the Ludlow Massacre Site. to because it is in the time of their parents and grandparents. The violence of the events—the killing of women and children—holds people’s attention and leads them to ask, “How could this have happened in America?” By excavating at Ludlow, we make these events news again, raise popular awareness of them, and expand people’s knowledge and sense of archaeology. The story of Ludlow brings the reality of class and class conflict in American history into sharp relief. This is in many ways a hidden history or at least a widely ignored conflict. Our project is a form of memory and remembrance that unearths that history, although this is a memory that we do not need to reveal for unionized workers. For them, Ludlow is a shrine and a powerful symbolic place that raises class-consciousness. From 1997 to 2001, for example, the steelworkers at the former CF&I plant in Pueblo, Colorado were on strike, and they embraced Ludlow as a symbol of their struggle. Our project actively seeks to educate the uninformed about what happened at Ludlow and to lend our expertise to assist unionized labor in maintaining this memory and consciousness. The UMWA has maintained Ludlow as a shrine and a sacred place but has done little to interpret the site to a wider audience. We have undertaken a variety of efforts to inform and educate the general public about what happened at Ludlow. Key to these efforts has been a three-sided interpretive kiosk that we erected in the summer of 1999. This kiosk has the story of Ludlow on one side, the story of our excavations on a second, and the story of Ludlow’s role in ongoing union struggles on the third. In the summers of 1999 and 2000, we conducted Summer Teachers Institutes sponsored by the Colorado Endowment for the Humanities. Public school teachers from around Colorado and other states in the west attended these institutes to learn about U.S. labor history, locate useful teaching materials, and frame the issues for students. To further aid teachers, we have also developed lesson plans for grades 4–12 and a traveling “history trunk” that tours Denver area schools. We have worked in cooperation with the UMWA, which owns the site of Ludlow. Every June, the organization holds a memorial service at Ludlow. Our traveling exhibit on the massacre and tours of our excavations have become regular features of this service. The exhibit has traveled to various union halls in Colorado and other states. For us, one of the most exciting parts of the project has been our annual address to the memorial service. It is quite a change from the stuffy meeting rooms of our academic presentations. It is also an unusual audience as hundreds of coal miners, steelworkers, and other union members listen with rapt attention and respond with applause to an archaeology talk. For more information and a bibliography on the Colorado Coal Field War and our project, you can visit our website at http://www.du.edu/~markwalk/ludlow98.html.


23

EXCHANGES

THE PLACE OF ARCHAEOLOGY IN TEACHING HISTORY IN THE AMERICAS: SOME EPISODES OF A LONG DEBATE Irina Podgorny Irina Podgorny is at the Museo de La Plata, UNLP/CONICET, Argentina.

I

n 1865, Gabriel de Mortillet started editing Materiaux pour l’histoire positive et philosophique de l’homme, a bulletin aimed at discussing “anthropology, ante-historic times, the Quaternary Epoch, and the species and spontaneous generation question.” In one of the first issues, it was noted that there was an increasing European movement for such studies, especially in England, France, Italy, and Switzerland, where “ante-historic studies were so developed that they had already been included in primary education” (Podgorny 2000). The consolidation of the new discipline included the organization of international journals and meetings as well as the recognition of the broader role of archaeology in society. The movement for the teaching of archaeology in general and prehistory in particular subsequently expanded all over the globe late in the 19th and early 20th centuries (García and Podgorny 2001; Stone and Planel 1999). For socialists, for example, it was connected with the teaching of history because prehistoric material culture could reveal the history of productive techniques and labor organization (Justo 1916, quoted also in Podgorny 1999:131–132).

In the Americas, the teaching of archaeology led to questions about the relationship between history and archaeology as academic fields as well as the subject of public education. The International Congresses of History and Americanists were the loci where some of these debates took place. The International Congress of Americanists was established in Europe in 1874 to contribute to the advancement of ethnographic, linguistic, and historical studies of the Americas, focusing especially on the Pre-Columbian period (Comas 1974:45). During the last decades of the 19th century, there were controversies over the introduction of Post-Columbian history as a topic of the Congress. The main argument was that the introduction of contemporary topics and colonial history would lead to political debates (Comas 1974:20). However, at the turn of the century, the Congress broadened its scopes and aims to “the historic and scientific study of the two Americas and their inhabitants.” Concern

24


about education on the Pre-Columbian past was only expressed at the Congress’s Sessions of La Plata (Argentina) in 1932, when the importance of school “museums” and exhibits for teaching prehistory and archaeology in secondary education was acknowledged (Comas 1974:61; cf. García and Podgorny 2001). In 1916, the (Pan)American Congress of Bibliography and History held in Buenos Aires and Tucumán (Argentina) included two sessions on “Pre-Columbian times.” Twenty years later, that period would be deliberately excluded. The first International Congress of History of the Americas was held in Rio de Janeiro in 1922, while the second meeting of this “institution devoted to promote and relate the higher activities of New World’s academies and historians” was postponed until Buenos Aires in 1937. By that time, historians had decided that the “history of the Americas” excluded prehistoric, protohistoric, and contact periods. These topics were more acceptable to the International Congress of Americanists (Levene 1938:13); in 1926, the Americanists’ Congress of Rome recommended that academic cooperation with the International Committee of Historical Sciences be established in order to advance the field of Latin American history among European scholars (Comas 1974:95). Pan-American historians, on the other hand, were focused on the “great traditions”—“grandes tradiciones de cada pueblo”—and on promoting solidarity among the countries of the Americas (Levene 1938:31). At this point, some of the Argentinean historians disparaged archaeologists as “merely concerned about acquiring more scientific knowledge” (Noel 1938:57). This attitude impacted public education about the past, for the meetings of the Congresses were connected with the development of history teaching at the secondary level. The Buenos Aires Congress, for example, was attended by delegates from all over the continent—historians, intellectuals, diplomats, and representatives of several historical associations and universities. Special delegates who attended the session on the teaching of history included an astounding 150 Argentinean secondary-

EXCHANGES

school representatives. Both public and private education were well represented by teachers from all over the country. Uruguay also sent a delegate on behalf of their National Council for Secondary Education (Academia Nacional de la Historia 1938:20–24). The goal of this special session was to review schoolbooks devoted to the teaching of history, as mandated both by an initiative of the Convención of Montevideo of 1933 as well as by an agreement signed between Argentina and Brazil in the same year. That agreement established the goal of “peoples’ friendship (‘amistad de los pueblos’), based on the knowledge of the history and geography of their homelands that new generations should share” (Levene 1938:33). In Europe, the same kind of initiatives were promoted after the Great War. In fact, an International Conference for the Teaching of History was established that published a quarterly journal in 1933 devoted to this topic and promoted an international survey about the teaching of history (Anonymous 1933; Podgorny 1999:108). This was part of a movement to promote peace among nations, an initiative that would soon collapse. However, Argentinean school-readers and history books were influenced, and topics designed to promote friendship among American peoples were included (Podgorny 1999). Some of the topics were connected with the archaeology of America’s great civilizations and indigenous legacies. Archaeology was seen as part of history that could provide a glue of concordia among nations. A Pan-American, post-World War II initiative was The Teaching of History in the Americas, a series of memoirs published by the Pan-American Institute of Geography and History’s Committee for History. The volumes were organized by country and published in Spanish (Mexico, Cuba, Colombia, Venezuela, Argentina, Honduras, Puerto Rico, etc.), English (United States), French (Haïti), and Portuguese (Brazil). This early 1950s project focused on all levels of teaching and still provides a useful overview of those years.

The Teaching of Archaeology in Contemporary Argentinean Education In the last twenty years, Argentina’s educational system has been in a process of both fragmentation and decentralization. It started in 1978, during the last dictatorship, with the transfer of secondary schools from federal to provincial management; the transfer of all primary schools occurred in 1991. During the military government, financial support was the obligation of provinces, but ideological control of education was kept at the federal level. In recent years, even the latter has slowly eroded. On the other hand, the Federal Education Law passed in 1993 ended the traditional organization of Argentinean education into the mandatory primary schools (1st to 7th year, for 6–12year-old children) and the secondary schools (1st to 5th year, for 13–18-year-old children). The new law expanded mandatory

Figure 1: Elementary students engage in some hands-on learning at the Ethnographic Museum, University of Buenos Aires in 1906 (García and Podgorny 2001: Fig. 2).

school attendance to the 9th year and reorganized the educational system of the country to include Educación Inicial (up to 5 years old), three three-year cycles of Enseñanza General Básica (General Basic Education), and three final years of Educación Polimodal. This law also provided general guidelines for what courses and topics should be covered (the Common Basic Contents), although control over their design was given to the provinces and schools (Albergucci 1995). The new law has resulted in a number of issues, including the dissolution of traditional courses like history and geography in the social sciences and debate over the importance that regional/local aspects should play. The debates surrounding the new law are also connected to the educational policies set after the last military dictatorship. In 1985 to 1987, there was a trend in Argentina to look for “our Latin American” identity, and, in opposition to the idea of cultural homogeneity supported by the military, Argentina was promoted as a multicultural country (Podgorny 1999). As a result, the province of Buenos Aires changed its primary education curriculum to present a more accurate vision of the indigenous past, from the peopling of the Americas up to today. The same reform completely changed how history was taught in secondary education; whereas the curriculum once began with European prehistory and classical antiquity, the new curriculum started with Pan-American prehistory and the indigenous cultures. This should have resulted in a new perception of local history, more connected with Pan-American cultures than with the “Eurocentric” framework. In the rest of Argentina, however, the reforms did not follow the Buenos Aires model. In 1991, a survey of the educational curricula in several Argentinean provinces revealed that most provinces did teach about native peoples’ pasts, but only the Province of Buenos Aires’s curricu-


25

EXCHANGES

lum mentioned “archaeology” as the tool for studying the material remains of that past (Podgorny 1999). It is also important to understand that mention of native peoples’ pasts in educational curricula did not necessarily mean complete “inclusion” of the subject matter (Stone and MacKenzie 1990). On the contrary, although presented as a part of social studies, discussion of the indigenous past was separated from the general presentation of history. Moreover, because the frequent curricular changes reflected several contested interpretations, teachers perceived the indigenous past as a subjective subject. Linking “the native past” with geography therefore appeared more neutral and objective (Podgorny 1999). Teachers have reacted to newer curricular reforms by holding on to their old methods of teaching (Podgorny 1999). The most important changes can, instead, be found in the new school handbooks. Several of the new school books were written or organized by younger historians who present information on the most important news from academia. Even the guidelines of the new reform were elaborated not by the educational bureaucracy but by leading scholars of the main academic fields. In contrast, as Romero (1996) points out, the school faculty was originally trained in a vision of history—an essentialist idea of The Nation and the use of history and the past as magister vitae—that has been rejected by academics. The loss of the teachers’ missionary role as well as the deteriorated labor conditions have made teachers skeptical about every new reform. According to the new Federal Education Law, in the third cycle of General Basic Education (what used to be the 7th year of primary school and the 1st and 2nd years of secondary school), the old history and geography courses have been replaced by the broader area of “social sciences.” This area includes other fields such as political science, sociology, anthropology, and economy. It also requires new syllabi, teacher training, and new books. The law also establishes the Common Basic Contents for language, math, natural sciences, technology, arts, sports and ethics. Although archaeology is not mentioned, the indigenous past appears in the curriculum of the social sciences, while the “Paleolithic Period” is included in the natural sciences’ curriculum. One of the most important features of the new law is that it gives schools complete freedom for setting up their own agenda within the general guidelines established by the federal ministry of education. Accordingly, the danger of increasing fragmentation of the Argentinean educational system is one of the most current criticisms against this new reform. Gabriel de Mortillet knew very well that the inclusion of a topic within public education was evidence of the social recognition of the discipline. Certainly he also knew that such acknowledgment required negotiation with the present social and political circumstances. In Argentina, the naturalization of both the remote and recent indigenous pasts has led to the acceptance of archaeology as an empirical discipline freed from ideological

26


interpretation. Teachers opposed the subjectivism of history and saw archaeology as rooted in the natural sciences. Will the continuing dialogue with history threaten this aura of science in archaeology?

Acknowledgments. I owe thanks to Phil Kohl and Maribel Martínez Navarrete for their suggestions.

References Cited Academia Nacional de la Historia 1938 IIº Congreso Internacional de Historia de América, Reunido en Buenos Aires en los Días 5 al 14 de Julio de 1937, 1 (Disertaciones, discursos, actas y resoluciones generales del Congreso). Buenos Aires. Albergucci, Roberto H. 1995 Ley Federal y Transformación Educativa. Troquel, Buenos Aires. Anonymous 1933 Bulletin trimestriel de la Conference Internationale pour l’enseignement de l’histoire. Vierteljährliche Zeitschrift der internationalen Konferenz für Geschichtsunterricht. Quarterly Bulletin of the International Conference for the Teaching of History, París. Comas, Juan 1974 Cien Años de Congresos Internacionales de Americanistas. Ensayo Histórico- Crítico y Bibliográfico. Instituto de Investigaciones Históricas y Antropológicas, UNAM, Mexico. García, Susana and I. Podgorny 2001 Pedagogía y nacionalismo en la Argentina: lo internacional y lo local en la institucionalización de la enseñanza de la arqueología. Trabajos de Prehistoria 58(2):1–18. Justo, Juan B. [1916] 1933 La enseñanza de la historia en la escuela primaria. In Internacionalismo y Patria. Obras Completas de Juan B. Justo, pp. 273–275. La Vanguardia, Buenos Aires. Levene, Ricardo 1938 Discurso del presidente del congreso y de la junta de historia y numismática Americana, Academia Nacional de la Historia 1938. IIº Congreso Internacional de Historia de América, Reunido en Buenos Aires en los días 5 al 14 de julio de 1937 1:31–35. Noel, Martin S. 1938 La arquitectura virreinal indoperuana, Academia Nacional de la Historia 1938. IIº Congreso Internacional de Historia de América, Reunido en Buenos Aires en los

>EXCHANGES,

continued on page 29

EXCHANGES

A FIRST LOOK AT PUBLIC OUTREACH IN MEXICAN AND GUATEMALAN ARCHAEOLOGY Emily McClung de Tapia Emily McClung de Tapia is an Associate Editor of the Exchanges column.

P

ublic outreach in Mexican and Guatemalan archaeology has generally not been recognized as an explicit objective of the discipline and is viewed rather as a potential byproduct of field research that may or may not be pursued according to the professional’s individual concerns. In order to get a preliminary feel for the concept of public outreach in our region, I concentrated on eliciting responses to a series of questions aimed at determining overall characteristics of the current situation and general opinions about what might be done to improve the public’s perception of archaeology. Time as well as logistical constraints led me to undertake a series of interviews with Mexican and Guatemalan colleagues (the latter via email) who have had considerable experience with different sectors of the “public” as field archaeologists, museum and research institution directors, site directors, coordinators of archaeological research at the national level, and so forth.

What Does the Public Want? Needless to say, the “public” has many facets, but it is important to determine what particular sectors of society we must try to reach. It is exceedingly difficult to suitably classify the public in terms that capture the broad variability in cultural/ethnic heritage, socioeconomic conditions, and educational background. Interests and perceptions are closely related to individuals’ specific situations with respect to these kinds of variables, which are themselves interrelated. For the moment, I will only attempt to provide a little insight into how some archaeologists view the role of our profession. First, there is a concern that the public needs and wants to identify with its history. National educational systems, particularly the primary and secondary levels, provide the basic framework within which populations learn about the past events that are deemed critical. Obviously, then, these contexts are fundamental and should be targeted. However, textbook versions of historical events are usually devoid of life and are often reduced to lists of dates and rulers and a few outstanding legacies. This approach presents an obvious problem for the study of prehistoric societies. On the other hand, tourism, especially directed to national residents, provides an additional context within which

the public may be exposed to history, manifest in material remains such as archaeological sites, other kinds of historical monuments, and associated museums. Here the possibility exists to bring life to otherwise sterile descriptions. The dramatic impact of an archaeological site and a well-planned exhibition is more effective than the few pages of an obligatory text and workbook. In neither instance, however, is emphasis usually placed on the role of archaeological research and data interpretation as the means by which information is generated. Of course we are begging the question here of whose history archaeology has uncovered. In the context of a modern state society, we could argue that the history conveyed through archaeological evidence is national cultural heritage, thus belonging to all. But here again, this perception, conveyed via a national education system among other means, may not reflect the thoughts of all sectors of the society. There is some disagreement among archaeologists as to whether or not historical continuity exists between the prehispanic past and the present of traditional ethnic groups, thus calling into question the assumption that indigenous groups are the rightful custodians of history as revealed through archaeological evidence. Particularly in Mexico and Guatemala, the effects of centuries of colonial rule, other interventions, and the impact of the modern state lead some to doubt the validity of direct continuity, thus refuting the position that modern indigenous societies are a direct link to the past. It is probably useless to generalize this perspective since, ethnographically, both extremes can be found, even though most traditional ethnic groups fall somewhere in between with respect to the preservation of traditional cultural norms. The main point is that history will have different significance for diverse sectors of society, and perhaps the most important role of the archaeologist in this case is to ensure that the knowledge that will serve these different purposes is correct insofar as possible.

Communicating Archaeology How can “correct” knowledge be communicated and propagated? In Latin America, as in other societies, radio and television are undoubtedly the most widely available means of mass com-


27

EXCHANGES

munication. Archaeologists look to television as the prime target to approach. Newspapers and magazines are secondary, obviously restricted to that literate portion of the society accustomed to reading. Archaeology publications aimed at the nonspecialist, ranging from comic formats to glossy high-end magazines, reach different sectors of the society. However, the demand for information at all levels of interest, under the guise of entertainment, is a constant. Thus, the media are the fundamental sources of knowledge for many community members, school-aged and beyond. Few commercial broadcasters reflect a social conscience or an interest in furthering knowledge, but there are exceptions. On the other hand, some radio and television stations, usually state and/or NGO-supported, often try to reach specific sectors of society through such devices as culturally oriented programming (including traditional/indigenous music, political discussions and commentary, educational topics, indigenous-language programming, among other features). The popularity in Mexico of dubbed editions of Discovery Channel and National Geographic documentaries, some of which are in fact dedicated to archaeology, is notorious. However, the majority of these are transmitted on cable networks rather than public television, greatly restricting access to the part of society that is more inclined, both economically and educationally, to already have an interest in scientific topics. Museums are a significant element and provide broad opportunities for communication of different aspects of the past through new technologies as well as the display of objects. Again, while not all sectors of society have access to museums, they are open without cost to students and educators. As they have become a major complement to primary and secondary education through periodic visits, it is the responsibility of the museum staff to periodically update exhibits, supplementary information, and resources such as video and live presentations for the public’s benefit. Museums are frequently found at archaeological sites, and their condition is largely a function of the importance of the site itself and the number of visitors it receives. Another interesting element is the concept of the community museum. A number of archaeologists have managed to foster the interest of the rural communities in which sites are located by stimulating the creation of local exhibits based on small permanent collections of materials obtained during excavation. Often these installations are inaugurated with great fanfare, only to be abandoned as time goes by and the archaeologist is no longer working in the area. Nevertheless, it might be argued that such efforts, however small, are valuable undertakings. Undoubtedly, archaeologists must exit the ivory tower and share the knowledge their scientific research generates. How? This can be accomplished by encouraging and collaborating in the creation of attractive programming in different media accessible to all sectors of the public and by actively participating in events aimed at different groups, including conferences, “hands-on”

28


workshops, guided tours of sites, and by incorporating community members as volunteers in field research when possible. (Ironically, the participation of nonprofessionals is largely prohibited by Mexican authorities who place stringent requirements on the academic preparation of field crew members, although nonprofessional local workers employed in projects often demonstrate remarkable ability beyond their assigned tasks once they receive training under the archaeologist’s supervision.)

Archaeology and Tourism Tourism is an element of considerable importance because of the impact it has on the local economy. The primary concern of national/state/local authorities is to generate resources that will cover not just the expense of maintaining public access to the sites but generate a profit as well. Although in Mexico the federal government is the ultimate authority, financial resources are generally insufficient to conduct explorations that will enhance a site’s attractiveness to tourism. Furthermore, state governments and the private sector are restricted from the development of archaeological sites outside the jurisdiction of the federal agency responsible for maintaining norms for excavation and reconstruction. Conflicts of interest therefore arise when the vision of a productive archaeological site (read “profitable”) is perceived as being hindered by the mandate of federal authorities concerned with the protection and appropriate use of the site. Because tourism is largely profit-oriented rather than educationally motivated, the archaeologist is at risk of becoming a tool of interests that rarely have scientific concerns and historical accuracy as goals. To further complicate this scenario, sites are often overrun by local groups of vendors, restaurateurs, and others whose main interest is individual profit. At the other extreme, many small or minimally excavated sites in out-of the way areas, which are not considered to be profitable, are largely abandoned and frequently deteriorated. Looting is a considerable problem at either scale, and the economic realities together with a lack of appreciation for the significance of archaeological materials and their contexts contributes to its perpetuation. A recent method for promoting particular archaeological sites has been to use them as the backdrop for spectacular cultural events such as concerts, the impact of which filters partially through different levels of the local community’s economy. Unfortunately, it has proved difficult to draw the line between acceptable (Plácido Domingo, Luciano Pavaroti) and unacceptable (Yanni, Maná) high-profile performers and to counter the equally unacceptable social distinction that restricted access to national cultural heritage sites (read “high-priced tickets”) implies, not to mention the potential damage to the sites themselves. Yet archaeological sites as well as colonial and more recent historical monuments should continue to live, and it is through public use of these installations that they can continue to do so. However, their protection must be guaranteed, and that is no simple task when competing economic interests are involved.

EXCHANGES

Archaeology and Public Outreach How can the cause of public outreach be furthered in Mexico and Guatemala? A major consideration is to learn to use the mass media to archaeology’s benefit. Creative programming and even evening melodramas, a tremendously popular form of entertainment (similar to soap-operas), is the way to reach more people. Exhibits in public spaces (parks, bus stations, airports, lobbies of public buildings, etc.) in addition to formal museums must be at the forefront of creativity in communication techniques. It is important to find a common ground between economic interests and the goals of scientific research through education. That means more contact with local communities, school populations, and the national public through participatory activities. Members of local communities, including traditional ethnic groups, must be encouraged to engage in activities related to archaeological fieldwork, and archaeologists must involve themselves in local schools and other groups to communicate the nature of their work and to help the community perceive how the research can benefit them. It is also necessary to encourage local students to continue their education beyond secondary school and to consider archaeology as a possible career option. This kind of participation should not be limited to rural contexts but is just as important in urban situations, where excavations are often rescue operations and are occasionally undertaken with the support of private companies obliged to comply with federal regulations. If the archaeologist is content to limit his contact with the community, political entity, or private company

to the minimum required to comply with the stated objectives for field research, the opportunity of having an impact on even a very small part of the public will be lost and the image of archaeology as a profession will not be furthered. While undergraduate programs in archaeology expand in response to the increased demand for certified professionals, this development must go hand in hand with increased job opportunities and more flexible schemes for financing field research and subsequent data analysis. Archaeologists in Mexico and Guatemala are poorly paid with limited employment opportunities. Thus, any concerted effort to improve the image of the profession and enhance the perception of its value to society must be accompanied with an improvement in the archaeologist’s professional options. Just as large sectors of society can hardly be expected to concern themselves with the innate value of archaeology while they are struggling to survive on a day-today basis, struggling archaeologists are hard-put to invest an extra effort in promoting public outreach.

Acknowledgments. Thanks to Jaime Litvak, Emeritus, Instituto de Investigaciones Antropológicas, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México; Eduardo Matos, Emeritus, Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Mexico; Felipe Solis, Director, Museo Nacional de Antropología, Mexico; Alejandro Martínez, Subdirector de Arqueología, Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, México; and Bárbara Arroyo, Director, Centro de Investigaciones Arqueológicas y Antropológicas, Universidad del Valle de Guatemala.

EXCHANGES

EXCHANGES, from page 26
PUBLIC EDUCATION, continued on page 44

ARTICLE

PUBLIC PERCEPTION AND “POP ARCHAEOLOGY”: A SURVEY OF CURRENT ATTITUDES TOWARD TELEVISED ARCHAEOLOGY IN BRITAIN Ceinwen Paynton Ceinwen Paynton is an Archaeological Researcher for Time Team, the longest running archaeological television show in the UK (now in is tenth series with its hundredth show being filmed this year). The 50-minute program is given a weekly slot on Channel 4 and regularly attracts over three million viewers. It is also shown on the Discovery Channel worldwide.

Over the last five years, Britain has witnessed an amazing renaissance in public archaeology. Archaeological and historical programs can now be seen almost every day of the week and attract a large percentage of the viewing audience. In light of this, I wanted to see what effect this level of interest has had on the viewing public’s perception of archaeology.. As archaeologists, we all have our idea of what archaeology is, based upon our own experience of the varied subjects within the discipline. I was interested in finding out if those watching archaeology on television have the same picture of archaeology that I have. I also wanted to know what type of archaeology viewers like to watch and whether watching archaeology on television is an active or passive process—does it satiate a desire to be given a neatly packaged window to the past? I was coming from a background in public archaeology, engaged in outreach to try and make archaeology and archaeologists more accessible to interested members of the public (Figure 1). I regularly used television programs as a teaching aid and point of reference during lectures and had presumed that TV archaeology was interpreted in a broadly similar way. I was very wrong! In order to find the answers to these questions, I undertook a limited survey of attitudes to TV archaeology. Using a very simple questionnaire, I asked people to indicate their level of interest in archaeology, whether they watched archaeological TV programs, which ones they watched, and how they affected them. My survey concentrated on three distinct groups: The first group, my control group was a vox populi sample of people who responded to the questionnaire while in the pub! The rationale behind choosing this group was that respondents would represent a truly random group, a cross-section of the community that met together in one place that does not suggest an interest in archaeology. The second group was made up of a group of visitors to an archaeological museum (in this case, the Yorkshire Museum in York). By visiting the museum, this group suggested an interest in archaeology. The third group of respondents, a group of active metal detectorists, was chosen to offer a different viewpoint. This group was wholly made up of detectorists possessing an established track record of collaborating with archaeologists and allowing their finds to be recorded, and they were therefore likely to have an interest in archaeology. This group potentially offered a viewpoint that was not the same as the group of museum visitors and, indeed, this was borne out by the survey.


33

ARTICLE

In each case, the survey sample was small, and I make no claims to statistical significance. The results obtained provide food for thought rather than indisputable conclusions, but I hope that the results and comments made are interesting and useful.

Group 1: The Control Group The composition of this particular group was severely skewed, with 84% of respondents being male. Despite not having been selected on the basis of interest in archaeology, 50% expressed a strong interest in archaeology, while an additional 17% expressed some interest in the subject; 33% expressed little interest in archaeology at all. Of those who were interested in archaeology, television proved to be the most popular means of pursuing that interest: Figure 1. The author with a group of museum visitors and detectorists at a hands-on identification and recording event where members of the public can come and be involved in the discovery, identification, and recording of small archaeological finds.

• • • • • •

TV viewing = 34% Reading = 25% Visiting archaeological sites = 17% Listening to radio programs = 8% Academic/vocational study = 8% Interested but not actively pursuing that interest = 8%

Half of the respondents listed the British Broadcasting Company’s channels, BBC1 and BBC2, as their most-watched channels (the BBC is broadly similar to PBS in the US, but is a much larger network). A total of 33% had ITV (Independent Tele Vision, i.e., commercially funded TV) as their most watched channel, while 17% said that Channel 4 (again, a channel funded through advertising revenue) was their most-watched channel. None of the respondents mentioned watching archaeological programming on satellite or cable channels! While 84% of respondents expressed the opinion that TV had changed the general public’s view of archaeology, paradoxically, 50% stated that their own view of the subject had not changed. Disturbingly, 33% felt that public perception of archaeology had altered for the worse due to the TV programs. On a more positive note, 100% of the control group thought that archaeology was useful, while only 17% felt that it excluded certain social groups. Over 60% felt that archaeological TV programs were well researched and balanced. A total of 67% of those questioned thought that archaeology, as presented on TV, appeared an exciting and glamorous job! Members of this group produced a number of interesting comments: • “[TV archaeology is] often too theatrical and populist.” Female archaeology graduate, strong interest, aged 21–30. • “It is for the younger generation.” Male, strong interest, aged 51–60. • “It excludes low-income groups and full-time workers.” Male, little interest, aged 41–50.

Group 2: Museum Visitors The problems of gender bias noted in the control group were less marked in this sample, with 55% of those who filled in questionnaires being male and 45% female. As might be expected with a sample entirely composed of visitors to an archaeological museum, 50% expressed a strong interest in archaeology, with a further 32% expressing some interest in the subject. Given the nature of the sample, I was surprised to find that 18% stated that they had little interest in archaeology at all! The means by which members of this group pursued their interest in archaeology differed in priority from those used by the control group. TV still represented the most popular method (34%), but in this case it was closely followed by museum visits. Other methods cited included:

34


ARTICLE

• • • • •

TV viewing = 34% Reading = 17% Visiting archaeological sites = 4% Listening to radio programs = 4% Buying archaeological magazines = 4%

Of this group, 37% stated that BBC 1 and 2 were their most watched channels, while 35% had ITV and 14% had Channel 4 as their most watched channel. The Discovery Channel was watched most by 7% of the group; 14% of this survey group mentioned cable and satellite channels as a preference. A substantial group of respondents (41%) conceded that their view of archaeology had been changed a little by TV archaeology, and 23% felt that their view had been significantly altered. Nevertheless, 37% said that it had not been changed at all, a proportion that contrasted with the belief of 91% of the group that the opinion of the general population had been altered by these programs. In other words, they did not see themselves as ordinary members of the public who had, in their view, had their opinion of archaeology changed by watching archaeology programs! These changes were felt to be for the most part (77%) positive. Some worrying perceptions relating to the usefulness and inclusivity of the subject emerged from questioning this group. A surprising 59% thought that archaeology was not useful, while only 14% thought it was useful. A total of 14% felt that archaeology excluded individuals or groups of individuals. More positively, 73% felt that archaeological TV programs were well-researched and balanced, while 68% of those questioned thought that archaeology, as presented on TV, appeared an exciting and glamorous job—a response very similar to that of the control group. Members of the group expressed a number of firmly held opinions: • “Archaeology is all about everyday life, the historical stories behind the kings and queens.” Male, some interest, aged 21–30. • “[TV archaeology is] very interesting, but only useful for historians.” Male, some interest, aged 21–30. • “Only archaeologists can say if a programme is well researched.” Female, some interest, aged 21–30. • “They [archaeological TV programmes] only show the finding; its probably not always so exciting.” Male, under 20. • “[Archaeological TV programmes have] too much filler and repetition.” Male, some interest, aged 31–40.

Group 3: Metal Detector Users Metal detecting is a huge hobby in the UK. It is estimated that tens of thousands of people across the country regularly search for small archaeological finds, most commonly coins and dress accessories. At least 40,000 finds are made in this way each year (Dennision, Ed. 1995, Metal Detecting and Archaeology, The Council for British Archaeology). These finds are known as portable antiquities (Figure 2), and in 1997, a voluntary pilot recording scheme, known as ‘“Finding our Past” was set up in England and Wales (but not Scotland and Ireland) to try and assess the scale of this activity and get these finds recorded properly so that the archaeological information is not lost (see 1999–2000 and 2000–2001 “Finding our Past”: The Annual Report of the Portable Antiquities Scheme, Department of Culture, Media and Sport, Publ. HMSO). The detectorists that made up my Group 3 were all finders who recorded their finds regularly as part of the “Finding our Past” project. The composition of this group reflects that of metal detecting groups across the country. The group was 100% male, and the group was extremely polarized in its attitude to archaeology, with every respondent expressing either a strong (71%) or little (29%) interest in the subject. Although all of the respondents were metal detectorists, only 26% of the group identified detecting as the main method by which they pursue an interest in archaeology. TV again dominated: • TV viewing = 47%


35

ARTICLE

• • •

Metal detecting = 26% (strange, as 100% of this group are detector users!) Reading = 16% Visiting archaeological sites and museums = 5%

Regarding their TV viewing, 33% stated that the BBC channels were their most-watched, while 17% had ITV and 22% listed Channel 4 as their most-watched channels. The Discovery Channel was most-watched by 17% of the group, while 28% indicated cable and satellite channels as their preference.

Figure 2. A seventh-century AD sword pommel, a beautiful example of AngloSaxon craftsmanship, gold overlain on an iron core.

This group showed very strong opinions on liking/disliking archaeological TV personalities. Through a mixture of verbal questioning and the actual questionnaires, this group showed very clearly that they perceived certain archaeologists as “good” or “bad.” This was something that had not come out of the survey of the other two groups.

Of this group, 100% felt that archaeology on TV had changed the general public’s perception of the subject (invariably for the better!). Only 37.5% said that their own view of archaeology had been changed by TV archaeology; again, we see the group as perceiving themselves as betterinformed than the “general public.” Nevertheless, 36.5% stated that their view had been changed dramatically by watching archaeological programs. The remainder said that their view had not changed at all. All of this group thought that archaeology was useful, but over 50% thought that archaeology was guilty of excluding vast swathes of the population and was doing so purposely. Of metal detectorists expressing this view, nearly 40% considered “the public” to be the top excluded section of the community, a clearly worrying perception. Another 25% felt that metal detectorists were excluded, while the “nonprofessionals” made up the rest of the people considered excluded from archaeology. This raises the question of whether accusations of vocational/nonvocational prejudice are valid; are we guilty of excluding the people whose past we dig up through our representation of our findings? Only 50% of respondents felt that archaeological TV programs were well-researched and balanced, a significantly lower percentage than seen in the other two groups, and a result that may perhaps reflect a latent hostility to archaeologists by the metal detectorists. Despite this opinion, the majority (63%) of all of those questioned thought that archaeology, as presented on television, appeared an exciting and glamorous job. This percentage closely mirrors those (67% and 68%) of the other two groups. As we might expect from the questionnaire’s results, members of this group were also happy to express some strong opinions:

• “Archaeology excludes anyone that found history boring at school.” Male, strong interest, aged 41–50. • “[Archaeology] is for the public but it usually excludes them.” Male, strong interest, aged 31–40. • “Archaeologists attempt to exclude non-academics and non-professionals.” Male, strong interest, aged 31–40. • “‘Time Team’ started off very well but has got a little theatrical of late. However for across the board viewers, it passes as archaeology.” Male, strong interest, aged 61–70. (Incidentally, this detectorist had taken up a degree course as a result of his involvement with the “Finding our Past” scheme.) • “Walls and features and all that digging, that’s not archaeology. Ancient objects are archaeology.” Male, with little interest, aged over 70.

>PAYNTON, continued on page 44

36


ARTICLE

INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT AS PUBLIC ARCHAEOLOGY Ethan Watrall Ethan Watrall is a Ph.D. Candidate in the Department of Anthropology at Indiana University, Bloomington, and a Research Associate at the Glenn A. Black Laboratory of Archaeology. A far more expanded version of this article, entitled “Digital Pharaoh: Archaeology, Public Education, and Interactive Entertainment,” appears in the Journal of Public Archaeology (2002) 2:2.

A

rchaeology’s love affair with interactive digital media was first seriously sparked by the famous Adventures in Fugawiland: A Computer Simulation in Archaeology. Originally published in 1990, Adventures in Fugawiland was the first archaeological multimedia to marry screen-based visualization and instructional content. Developed by T. Douglas Price and Anne Birgitte Gebauer of the University of Wisconsin, Adventures in Fugawiland is designed to introduce students to the basics of archaeological research by allowing them to simulate fieldwork experiences. Students work with a realistic topographical map containing a number of fictional prehistoric sites (located in Fugawiland), choose which sites to excavate, examine what they discover, and answer questions about their findings. If they encounter difficulties, students can refer to abundant on-screen help. Adventures in Fugawiland has enjoyed three separate publications (the most recent in March of 2002 by McGraw-Hill) and is still widely used as course material in many anthropology classes throughout North America. The popularity and widespread acceptance of Adventures in Fugawiland coupled with the emergence of the powerful personal computer, the CD-ROM drive, and the World Wide Web gave archaeological interactive media a sense of direction and motivation. In the years after the original release of Adventures in Fugawiland, the archaeological community focused much of its creative energies toward producing multimedia geared either toward their peers or a university-based educational market. However, as archaeologists focused their multimedia endeavors, the “interactive revolution,” as it was called, allowed for the emergence and widespread commercial production of archaeologically inspired interactive multimedia. In recent years, with the increasingly widespread use of advanced personal computing technology such as DVD-ROM drives and broadband internet access, the number of multimedia products developed within the archaeological community has certainly increased. However, the focus on peer-to-peer communication and university-based courseware has remained quite entrenched. Archaeologists rarely ever consider exclusively targeting their interactive media towards the commercial market. This is ironic because, when it comes to public education, the average undergraduate who enrolls in an anthropology course is, relatively speaking, one of the last people in need of outreach. As a result, the increasing public desire for sensational representations of the human past have been largely fulfilled by commercial interactive media producers that rarely have anywhere near the level of expertise necessary to produce titles that conform to the high content standards that archaeologists desire.

Archaeology in Commercial Interactive Entertainment Interactive entertainment is undoubtedly one of the most overlooked manifestations of commercially produced archaeological interactive media. This is hardly any great surprise, as when most people think of computer games, they immediately envision an acne-stricken teenage boy hunched over a monitor and joystick in their basement, happily vaporizing denizens from the underworld in such popular titles as Quake III or Unreal. However, it is important that archaeologists recognize that the interactive entertain-


37

ARTICLE

ment industry produces far more than violent “twitch games” targeted at pubescent boys. In fact, there is an amazing number of commercial interactive entertainment titles that use human culture, both past and present, upon which to base their game-play. The concern, as well as the primary thrust of this discussion, is that archaeologically inspired interactive entertainment titles are often an outlet for some of the worst kinds of pseudoarchaeological ideas. One of the most obvious examples of this is the Tomb Raider series. Published by Eidos Interactive, the various installments of the series feature the “archaeologist” Lara Croft, who, with her gravity-defying bosom, cuts a swath through various tombs, crypts, burials, and graves in order to obtain golden statues, emerald idols, and generally anything of value that isn’t nailed down. While most archaeologists and anthropologists are at least marginally aware of the Tomb Raider series and deplore its fantastical and unethical approach to archaeology, they are probably unaware of the level of recognition and popularity the series itself Figure 1. Civilization III, developed by Firaxis has reached. In 1998 alone, Tomb Raider, in its various versions and incarnations, Games, is the latest installment of one of the most exceeded 23.5 million dollars in sales. With a total of seven titles for PC, four for the popular archaeologically inspired titles. Sony Playstation console, and two for the Sega Dreamcast console, the Tomb Raider series has consistently built its storylines around looting and pothunting, ethnocentrism, and pseudoarchaeology. Angry prehistoric deities escaped from thousand-year imprisonments and Lost Atlantean cities filled with incredible riches are among the standard plot vehicles found in your average Tomb Raider title. Anyone even remotely concerned with public education, as all archaeologists ought to be, will immediately recognize the impact that this single title has had on the public’s perception of archaeology and archaeologists.

Archaeological Themes in Strategy-Based Games The phenomenon of archaeologically inspired interactive entertainment, however, goes far beyond the Tomb Raider series. One of the first archaeologically inspired titles—and arguably still the most popular—is Microprose’s original Civilization series. Based on a board game of the same name published by Avalon Hill, the first two installments in the series, Civilization and Civilization II were created by the venerable game developer Sid Meier. In the series, game-play revolves around the construction of a “civilization” over the course of many thousands of years. The player starts the game as a Neolithic chieftain and must establish a settlement and then balance economic, military, and political developments in order to reach a position of supremacy over surrounding civilizations. The franchise was, and still is, extremely popular, spawning multiple sequels including Civilization: Call to Power, Call to Power 2, and Civilization 2: Test of Time. In 1998 alone, Civilization II grossed more than 7 million dollars. Released in 2001, the latest installment to the series, Civilization III, has received an equal amount of critical acclaim and commercial success (Figure 1). Perhaps the most significant addition to Civilization III, at least in terms of this limited discussion, is the notion of “culture.” Once a player constructs churches, libraries, and other such edifices and lets them age for a given time, they begin to gain what are referred to as “culture points.” These points increase the player’s influence over cities that border their nation, but which are not a direct part of it. As the adjacent civilizations begin to admire the player’s “culture,” there is a far better chance that they will change political allegiances. An additional example of popular archaeologically inspired interactive entertainment is the Age of Empires franchise. Developed by Ensemble Studios and published by Microsoft in 1998, the first in the series, titled Age of Empires, grossed more than 17 million dollars in its first year of sales. The sequel, also developed by Ensemble Studios and published by Microsoft, called Age of Kings, was released in 1999 and raised the franchises total sales to more than 50 million dollars. According to its own admittedly obsequious PR, Age of Empires is an epic real-time strategy game spanning 10,000 years, in which players act as a guide in the development of small Neolithic tribes. Starting with minimal resources, players are challenged to build their tribes into a great civilization. In Age of Kings, as well as its expansion pack Age of Kings: Conquerors, players take control of one of 13 civilizations and guide them through the 1,000 years between the fall of the Roman Empire and the Middle Ages.

38


ARTICLE

While both the Civilization and Age of Empires series are engaging and entertaining, they draw heavily upon a series of 19th-century anthropological ideas to form their core game-play. The most obvious is an ethnocentric unilinear evolutionary model a la Louis Henry Morgan in which the player progresses from a state of utter barbarism and complete ignorance to the height of technological and social domination. Further, there is also a strong sense that an overly simplistic system of diffusion, the best example of which is Civilization III’s “culture points,” is one of the primary driving forces for the development of human culture.

The Role of Archaeologists in Interactive Entertainment So, where does this leave us? Well, if anything is to be gained from this much-abbreviated look at archaeologically inspired interactive entertainment (of which there are many more examples), it is that the industry is running roughshod over ethical issues that the archaeological community has worked very hard to address over the past years. Given this, the question we are forced to inevitably ask is why hasn’t the prominent place of pseudoarchaeology and antiquated anthropological theory in interactive entertainment been seriously addressed? Granted, interactive entertainment itself has received a certain amount of focus in the wider anthropological literature from the perspective of narrative structure and visual anthropology (Bruno 1995; Jiveskog 1992; Radkowska 1999). However, it has never even come close to being seriously explored by archaeologists. One of the most obvious problems is that archaeologists are ignorant of the dynamic of the commercial interactive industry. This is understandable as, above all, we are archaeologists first. Further, archaeologists are generally unaware of the astounding popularity of archaeologically inspired titles. Beyond this, however, there is a far more endemic concern that needs to be addressed. Whether or not people are willing to admit it, interactive entertainment has always been viewed as a somewhat childish pastime. As a result, there is a certain amusing stigma attached to the whole idea of exploring archaeologically oriented interactive entertainment. It is important that archaeologists divest themselves of the notion that only pubescent teenage boys consume interactive entertainment and recognize the potency of interactive entertainment and that it desperately needs to be targeted as a legitimate focus of research and outreach. The recent development of institutionalized public archaeology programs has the potential not only to face the interactive entertainment industry’s increasing encroachment into archaeology, but also to change the sentiments that many archaeologists hold toward interactive entertainment. Many individuals within the discipline are beginning to devote themselves full-time to public outreach and education. They are not burdened by the same double responsibilities traditionally suffered by field archaeologists who carry out their research as well as attempt to engage the public. It is these individuals who are in the best position to begin looking at the way in which interactive entertainment has impacted the discipline. More specifically, however, there needs to be a new breed of public archaeologists who take an active participatory role, as consultants, developers, and writers, in the interactive entertainment industry. By doing so, not only will a measure of ethical archaeology be injected into interactive entertainment, but the potential also exists to reach groups of people that, traditionally, have been relatively untouched by previous public education and outreach.

References Cited Bruno, Pierre 1995 The Practice of Video Games: An Approach to a Mediated Mass Leisure Activity. Ethnology Française 25:103–112. Jiveskog, L. O. 1992 Computer Games: A Challenge to the Imagination. Fataburen 1992:200–210. Radkowska, Magdalena 1999 The Hyper-Reality of Lara. The Lara of Hyper-Reality. Kotensky 1/2:168–174.


39

NEWS & NOTES A Partnership for Preservation at Salmon Ruins. The Center for Desert Archaeology announces a new partnership with Salmon Ruins Museum to renew the research potential of this important Chacoan outlier, which was the focus of a major excavation and stabilization program in the 1970s. Led by Dr. Cynthia Irwin-Williams, it was the largest single archaeological investigation in the Upper San Juan region, and resulted in over 1.5 million artifacts and an extensive documentary record, now housed in the laboratory-museumlibrary complex on the grounds adjacent to the site. The new partnership is part of the Center’s Heritage Southwest Project, a major initiative using research, education, and partnership programs to build a preservation archaeology network across the Southwest. Phase one of the partnership focuses upon personnel and research needs at the site. The Center for Desert Archaeology is providing a full-time professional archaeologist to the Salmon Ruins Museum for the next three years. Local archaeologist and long-time Farmington resident Paul Reed has accepted this Preservation Archaeologist position. A second phase of the Center-Salmon partnership is concerned with curation and preservation needs at the Museum. The effects of time, coupled with changes in curatorial standards, mean that the massive collection of artifacts, samples, and analysis data stored at the Salmon Ruins Research Center and Library for almost 30 years now require conservation attention. Lori Reed, who is leading the curation project, estimates that supplies alone will cost close to $60,000. To begin the work on this critical project, the Center has made a $5,000 grant to Salmon Ruins for initial conservation

40

materials. Center and Museum staff are working together to raise the rest of the funding needed to complete the curation work.

• Nebraska, Keith County. Archeological Site 25KH68. Listed 12/04/01. • Wisconsin, Dane County. Fort Blue Mounds. Listed 9/24/01.

Call for Papers! Arqueología del Area Intermedia, an international, peerreviewed journal published jointly by the Instituto Colombiano de Antropología e Historia and the Sociedad Colombiana de Arqueología and covering the archaeology of the Intermediate Area, requests papers for its fourth issue, to be published later this year. Editorial requirements are those of American Antiquity. For more information, write to the editors: Cristúbal Gnecco, cgnecco@ucauca. edu.co; Victor González, vgonzalez@mincultura. gov.co.

Washington State University (WSU) Receives National Science Foundation (NSF) Biocomplexity Research Award. NSF has funded a $920,000 three-and-ahalf year award in the area of Dynamics of Coupled Natural and Human Systems to Timothy A. Kohler and co-PIs Kenneth Kolm (hydrologist at Argonne National Lab), Robert Reynolds (computer scientist at Wayne State University), and Mark Varien (Research Director at Crow Canyon Archaeological Center) for a detailed study of human/ecosystem interaction in the northern Mesa Verde region between A.D. 600 and 1300. The project combines traditional archaeological research with modeling of surface- and ground-water availability and potential maize production through time, integrated in an agentbased modeling framework employing cultural algorithms. More information on this research, and a list of all the awards in this program, can be found at http://www.nsf.gov/home/crssprgm/b e/BE_competitions/be_01_cnh_awards .htm. In conjunction with this award, WSU will support an additional halftime graduate research assistantship for each of the next three years for a student intending to employ agent-based modeling in thesis or dissertation research (details at http://libarts.wsu. edu/anthro/).

Additions to the National Register of Historic Places. The following archaeological properties were listed in the National Register of Historic Places during the fourth quarter of 2001. For a full list of National Register listings every week, check “Recent Listings” at http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/nrlist.htm: • Colorado, Las Animas County. Trinchera Cave Archeological District. Listed 10/22/01. • Colorado, Montezuma County. Mitchell Springs Archeological Site. Listed 11/09/01 (Great Pueblo Period of the McElmo Drainage Unit MPS). • Colorado, Montrose County. Shavano Valley Rock Art Site. Listed 10/12/01. • Colorado, Kiowa County. Sand Creek Massacre Site. Listed 9/28/01. • Louisiana, Bienville Parrish. Conly Site. Listed 9/14/01. • Nebraska, Keith County. Archeological Site 25KH67. Listed 12/04/01


The 2002 Laboratory for Archaeological Chemistry Graduate Student Research Award has been given to Margaret Beck of the University of Arizona for her project entitled “Midden Formation and the Midden Depositional Environment in Kalinga, Philippines.” This research

NEWS & NOTES

will involve the compositional analysis of some 80 soil samples collected as part of the Kalinga Ethnoarchaeological Project in northern Luzon, Philippines. The goal of the analysis is to obtain information on the formation and composition of anthrosols in agricultural villages in Southeast Asia. The Laboratory for Archaeological Chemistry at the University of Wisconsin-Madison is dedicated to archaeometric research and focuses on the elemental and isotopic analysis of archaeological bone, soils, pottery, and stone. Further information on the lab and this award is available at http:// www.wisc.edu/larch/aclab/larch.htm. First Center for Desert Archaeology/ Museum of Northern Arizona Advanced Seminar. In October 2001, scholars from across North America met in the Historic Colton House on the campus of the Museum of Northern Arizona in Flagstaff, Arizona, for a week-long, intensive seminar entitled “An Exploration of Mogollon-Zuni Relationships.” Jointly sponsored by the Center for Desert Archaeology and the Museum of Northern Arizona as part of an ongoing partnership between the two organizations, this advanced seminar assembled a diverse group of researchers for further consideration of this issue and its ramifications. Follow-up consultations with representatives from Zuni Pueblo will take place in the coming year. Plans are currently underway to publish the seminar proceedings.

POSITIONS OPEN Position: Heberling Associates, Inc Location: Huntingdon, PA Heberling Associates, Inc., a small central Pennsylvania CRM firm, seeks a qualified individual to direct artifact curation and analysis. The position is full-time, salaried, and available immediately. Full benefit package offered. Salary commensurate with experience. Ideal candidate would possess an M.A. in anthropology or related field, practical experience in prehistoric and historic artifact analysis, familiarity with Pennsylvania and Middle Atlantic archaeology, computer literacy, strong writing skills, and abilities to work independently and supervise others. Applicants should send a letter of interest and resume to Heberling Associates, 415 Mifflin Street, Huntingdon, PA, 16652; e-mail: [email protected]; fax: (814) 643-3014. Position: Curator of Archaeological Collections Location: Charlottesville, Virginia The Thomas Jefferson Foundation (Monticello) seeks a Curator of Archaeological Collections, responsible for ongoing laboratory operations, curation, and collections research in the Department of Archaeology. We seek an individual with strong organizational skills, experience with complex relational databases and quantitative computing applications, knowledge of the material culture of the early-modern Atlantic world, and a track record of innovative collections-based research. This is a full-time position with benefits. For more on

archaeology at Monticello, see http:// www.monticello.org/icjs/archaeology. Please submit cover letter, resume, the names of three references, and salary expectations to: Thomas Jefferson Foundation, ATTN: Anne Londeree, Post Office Box 316, Charlottesville, VA, 22902; e-mail: [email protected]; fax: (434) 977-7757. EOE. Position: Historical Archaeologist Location: Monroeville, PA GAI Consultants, Inc., has an immediate opening for a full-time historical archaeologist/principal investigator in its Pittsburgh office. A Master’s Degree in historical archaeology and at least 5 years experience in CRM is required for this position. Responsibilities include directing field work projects throughout the Northeastern U.S., proposal writing, report writing, and artifact analysis. Special interest will be given to candidates with extensive experience in urban archaeology of the Northeastern United States. This is a senior-level position, and all candidates must possess a strong background in historic artifact analysis and experience writing Phase II/III technical archaeological reports. Persons with strong communication and management skills are desired. GAI offers comprehensive benefits and is an equal opportunity employer. Please send resume to address below or e-mail to [email protected]. GAI Consultants, Inc., http://www. gaiconsultants.com, 570 Beatty Road, Monroeville, PA 15146, (EEO M/F/V/D).


41

CALENDAR 2002

APRIL 5–6 A Trans-Borderland Conference, “Social Control on Spain’s North American Frontiers: Choice, Persuasion, and Coercion,” will be held at Southern Methodist University, Dallas, TX. This conference marks the culmination of a year-long dialogue between scholars from Mexico, the U.S., and Spain, as each explores the nature of social control in the region he or she knows best, explaining how and why the institutions and practices in that region depart from or adhere to what are generally perceived as “norms” on the Spanish frontier. For more information, contact Andrea Boardman, Associate Director, Clements Center for Southwest Studies, Dallas Hall Room 356, Southern Methodist University, P.O. Box 750176, Dallas, TX 75275-0176; tel: (214) 7681233; fax: (214) 768-4129; email: [email protected]; web: http://www2. smu.edu/swcenter.

APRIL 10–13 The 55th Northwest Anthropological Conference, “Preserving the Spirit of Place,” will be held at the Owyhee Plaza Hotel in Boise, Idaho. The Idaho State Historical Society is co-hosting the conference with the Idaho BLM, Boise National Forest and Boise State University. For more information, see http://www2.state.id.us/ishs/anthroconference.html or contact Mary Anne Davis, conference chair, at [email protected].

42

APRIL 10–14

MAY 3–4

The 71st Annual Meeting of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists will be held in Buffalo, New York. Additional information can be obtained at http://www.physanth.org/, or by contacting Phil Walker at pwalker@ anth.ucsb.edu.

The First Chicago Conference on Eurasian Archaeology, hosted by the University of Chicago Department of Anthropology, is being convened to allow scholars and students working in the region an opportunity to share recent results and discuss priorities for future investigations. The theme of the meeting is “Beyond the Steppe and the Sown: Integrating Local and Global Visions.” For more information, visit http://acc.spc.uchicago.edu/eurasianconference/ or contact David Peterson at [email protected].

APRIL 13 The 25th Annual Midwestern Conference on Mesoamerican Archaeology and Ethnohistory will be hosted by the University of Wisconsin-Madison Department of Anthropology. This informal meeting brings together scholars from many disciplines (archaeology, ethnohistory, art history, socio-cultural anthropology, and others) for a day of papers and discussions about the Mesoamerican past. For more information, contact Jason Yaeger, Dept. of Anthropology, UW-Madison, Madison, WI 53706-1393; or click on the conference link at http://www.wisc.edu/ anthropology.

APRIL 24–27 The 5th Cinarchea Internationales Archäologie-Film-Kunst-Festival held in Kiel, Germany is a biennial festival and scholarly conference focused on recent international productions about the field, previous international prize winners, notable older productions, and experimental archaeology. The 2002 conference theme is “Discoveries, Films, False Friends: Archaeological Films Working for Profit and Propaganda.” Screenings will be held at the Stadtgalerie (Kulturforum) in central Kiel. For more information, contact Dr. Kurt Denzer, Director, CINARCHEA, Breiter Weg 10, D-24105 Kiel, Germany; tel: (49.431) 579.4941/4942; tel/fax: (49.431) 579.4940; email: [email protected]; web: http://www.uni-kiel.de/ cinarchea/index.htm.


MAY 16–19 The 4th Agon International Meeting of Archaeological Film of the Mediterranean Area held in Athens is a biennial festival. It focuses on films about Mediterranean archaeology from prehistory to modern times and documentaries about folk art and other endangered Mediterranean popular traditions. Programs will be held at the Apollon theater, 19 Stadiou St. For more information, contact Maria Palatou, Secretary, AGON c/o Archaiologia ke Technes (Archaeology and Arts), 10 Karitsi Square, 102 37, Athens, Greece; tel: (30.1) 33.12.990; tel/fax: (30.1) 33.12.991; email: [email protected].

MAY 18–21 The 16th Biennial Conference of the Society of Africanist Archaeologists will be hosted by the Department of Anthropology at the University of Arizona in Tucson. For more information, contact David Killick (email: [email protected]) or Charles Bollong (email: [email protected]) or visit the SAfA website at http://www.rz.unifrankfurt.de/~bornu/safa/safa.htm.

CALENDAR

JUNE 26–29 The Third Monte Alban Round Table will be held at Santo Domingo Cultural Center and the Hotel Victoria, Oaxaca, Mexico. The general theme will be “Political Structures in Ancient Oaxaca,” focusing on the topics of Monte Alban and its political impact, the postclassic and early colonial period in Oaxaca, and contemporary Oaxaca. Papers will be on invitation. For those interested in participating in the poster sessions, please contact the organizers. Students are welcome to participate in the Premio Monte Alban, a contest of papers on the themes of the main event. For more information, contact Nelly Robles and/or Eloy Pérez at Zona Arqueologica de Monte Alban, Pino Suarez 715, 68000, Oaxaca, Oax., México; tel and fax: (52) 951 51 69770; email: [email protected].

JULY 15–19 XVI Simposio de Investigaciones Arqueológicas en Guatemala will be held at Museo Nacional de Arqueología y Etnología, Guatemala. For more information, email [email protected], [email protected], or hectores@ uvg.edu.gt.

AUGUST 8–11 The 17th biennial meeting of the American Quaternary Association (AMQUA) will be held at the University of AlaskaAnchorage. The theme of the conference is the peopling of the Americas in its paleoenvironmental setting. Program topics include Late Quaternary Paleoecology and the Peopling of the Pacific Coast. The AMQUA meetings will be preceded by the Inuit Studies Conference and a special Beringia Working Group (INQUA) symposium on Archaeology of the Russian Far East. Additional activities are planned. Members and nonmembers welcome. Deadline for

poster submissions and registration: May 1, 2002. For more information, contact David R. Yesner, Local Arrangements Chair, at [email protected], or c/o Department of Anthropology, University of Alaska, 3211 Providence Drive, Anchorage, AK 99508; tel: (907) 786-6845; fax: (907) 786-6850.

AUGUST 23–28 The 2002 ICAZ International Meeting will be held at the University of Durham, Durham, UK. The general aim of the meeting is to place the study of zooarchaeology within the framework of broader archaeological questions around the theme of human behaviour. Colleagues are cordially invited to offer papers and posters that contribute to the proposed sessions (see conference website), although contributions dealing with other topics will be accommodated. For more information, contact: ICAZ 2002, Department of Archaeology, University of Durham, South Road, Durham, DH1 3LE, UK; tel: +191 374 1139; fax: +191 374 3619; email: [email protected]; web: http://www.dur.ac.uk/icaz.2002.

SEPTEMBER 18–21 The 3rd International Conference on Archaeological Theory in South America will take place in Villa de Leyva, Colombia. It is organized by the Departamento de Antropología, Universidad de los Andes (Bogotá). For more information, email [email protected] or visit http://curlinea.uniandes.edu.co/arqueoteoria.

SEPTEMBER 28 “Ethics and the Practice of Archaeology” is an interdisciplinary symposium to be held at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. It aims to advance dialogues about the wide range of ethical issues affecting contemporary archaeol-

ogy. Submissions are particularly welcome on solutions or models of how ethics can be put into operation in contexts such as building relations with affected people, excavation and survey, development of tourism, historic preservation and conservation programs, writing and enacting legal instruments, and public outreach initiatives and education. For more information, see http://www.museum.upenn.edu/Ethics, or contact Alexander Bauer at ethics@ museum.upenn.edu.

OCTOBER 9–12 The 28th Biennial Great Basin Anthropological Conference will be held in Elko, NV. For more information, contact Patricia Dean; tel: (208) 282-2107; email: [email protected].

OCTOBER 18–19 The 12th Mogollon Archaeology Conference, Biennial Meeting, will be held in Las Cruces, NM. For more information, contact Terry Moody or William Walker at Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Box 3BV, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM 88003; tel: (505) 646-2148 or (505) 646-7006; email: [email protected], wiwalker@ nmsu.edu.

NOVEMBER 20–24 The 101st Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological Association will be held at the Hyatt Regency, New Orleans, LA. The theme of this year’s meetings is: "(Un)Imaginable Futures: Anthropology Faces the Next 100 Years." The deadline for submissions is March 31, 2002. If you would like your session to be considered for inclusion in the program as an Invited Session of the Archaeology Division, please contact AD Program Editor Cathy Costin at cathy.l.costin@ csun.edu as soon as possible.


43

GOVERNMENT ARCHAEOLOGY, from page 12